1. GROUPTHINK 2.0
By Slim Fairview
I sat on an economic development committee for over two years. In that time, I
observed a group of people, some professionals (CEO banking), economic
development, etc. and community people. (Business people.)
I observed the group. There was no groupthink. It looked like someone trying to
herd cats.
After two years of attempting to stimulate investment, attract business, deal with
green fields and brown fields, we finally had the opportunity to entertain a state
official of the department that hands out grant money. (It's their job to give money
away.)
We put on a great presentation, tour, helicopter, luncheon, the works. We were
shot down--unceremoniously. (As Mrs. Slocum used to say, "How ignimonious"
sic)
Upshot. "We give money for projects, not plans."
They licked their wounds. Still, they did not accomplish much.
On another committee, (Finance committee of a government programme.) I
opined on moving funds into technology related projects. Website development,
improvement, etc. People listened to me. We voted; agree--unanimously--funds
were moved. Subsequently, the web presence and technology use became vital.
We were that much ahead of the game.
Groupthink is a result of consensus building which was a consequence of the
absence of leadership. Too, an absence of followship.
I addressed that issue in another discussion where a budding expert was giving
examples of how he/she helped groups avoid groupthink. In short, this individual
encouraged groupthink.
It is somewhat disheartening to watch (as I watched the members of that
economic development committee), people discussing the same issues that had
been discussed, have been discussed, are being discussed and will continue to
be discussed.
I've studied groups, been in groups, been in a group that studied itself, worked in

2. groups, on committees, on a committee to form a committee to set up a
programme to form committees, and I dissected the different structures used
handle projects and explained why each does not work. However, as I am
adamant in my opposition to articles that are descriptive and not prescriptive, I
also set up an organisational chart that will work for one of my ppt. presentations.
As I read in clever book on management just the other night (While waiting for
my cat to come home) Come Together: The Business Wisdom of the Beatles by
Richard Courtney and George Cassidy.
"Parks are full of statues erected to honour leaders. There are no statues erected
to honour committees."
"This too shall pass."
In the heat of battle, no one turns to a committee. Everyone looks to a leader.
See who they are looking to. That is a leader. That is the leader.
In my much younger days, when I took a holiday job while I was working on a
novel, the VP came in, furious, because the department was in a chaotic state.
For the second time. He asked my supervisor,
"What do we have to do to get this straightened out?"
My supervisor looked to me. The VP looked to me. I had a second operation
(holiday) up and running the following day. Moreover, I was not even an actual
employee of the company. Only a holiday temp.
The VP did not say, “Let's form a committee to find a solution.”
I did not receive a smiley face key chain.
The flip-side to one aspect on group think is that people propose new ideas,
however, 1. Due to groupthink the ideas are rejected; 2. due to a lack of ability
demonstrated by several members of the group, the new idea is rejected; 3 lack
of ability of the "leader" the idea is rejected; there is a divisiveness among the
group (for and against) we move into the mode of consensus building and the
new idea is watered down to where it is palatable....
However! The biggest problem with respect to "group think" is hiding in plain
sight. The word "group". In addition, if you do "win over" the other members of
the group and all embrace your new idea you end up with [wait for it]
GroupThink 2.0

3. Now you have two conflicting ideas at play. 1. Getting rid of Group Think and 2.
Consensus building. On the corporate level, you have Risk Management and
Risk Assessment. There is a cost-benefit analysis that new ideas must go
through.
Finally (or not) there is the needy member(s) of the group who, after having an
idea rejected, refuse to accept that the idea was rejected on the basis of a lack of
merit, but who feel personally demeaned, diminished, marginalised and so on.
A greater reason that people do not propose new ideas is a personal one--the
lack of ability to make objective assessments.
Regards,
Slim
Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com
Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview