Shared Cognition and Group Satisfaction

Another article came through on my groupthink RSS feed:

Park, Hee Sun. "The Effects of Shared Cognition on Group Satisfaction and Performance." Communcation Research. 2008 Feb; 35(1):88-108.


Okay, this article isn't about groupthink. In fact, it doesn't even mention groupthink. But it is still a good article and I learned from it.


I have two thoughts on it. First, it discusses two "conversational constraints: politeness and efficiency." In polite conversation, you are "mannerly, courteous, and respectful." In efficient conversations, you are "direct, immediate, and to the point, not wasting time, energy, effort, or steps." This may be not be news to people reading this, but it is news to me. I'd put this almost on par with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as an important tool for communication. Just as an INTJ needs to understand that an ESTP is going to go about communication differently; a polite conversationalist needs to understand the difference with an efficient conversationalist.


Second, the author goes on for several pages talking about how the study was probably inaccurate and why. I love that! Perhaps I spend too much time following politics, where saying you're wrong is not in the playbook, but I love that scientists openly admit being wrong. Even when there are no indications of being wrong, they still say, "this warrants further study."

There's a certain level of being comfortable in your skin when you can say, "yeah, I believe this is correct, but double-check my work if you like."


A good read, and I learned a lot. But, rather than read this article, you might be better off reading the text on polite versus efficient conversation.


And have a good day.

Groupthink and People Who Don't Get It

An unfortunate article came through my groupthink RSS feed today.
Butler M. Our HR columnist: Work is a team sport--but beware of 'group think' that ignores the needs of the organization. People Management. 2007 Nov 29;13(24):43.

This article is frustrating because Butler comes to the correct conclusion--beware of groupthink--even though every step on the way to those conclusions is just a bit off. Instead of acknowledging groups need to be cautious, he suggests that teamwork can be hazardous. No one, to my knowledge, is warning against teamwork. We are warned that group dynamics need to be monitored.

So, while Butler advises correctly that we need to be "eternally vigilant," I would not suggest promoting this article as ignorance seems to be the skeleton of the piece.

If you don't have access to this article, feel comfortable in keeping it that way.

And have a good day.

Groupthink and Citizen Juries in The Netherlands

A month ago, this article came across my groupthink RSS feed.
Huitema D, van de Kerkhof M, Pesch U. The nature of the beast: are citizen's juries deliberative or pluralist? Policy Science. 2007;40:287-311.

To be honest, this article is over my head, but here is what I got out of it. Citizens' (as opposed to penal) juries are minipublics. The conclusion of the article is that you need to design a citizens' jury based on what you want to get out of the jury. Deliberative juries would need to be formed and processed one way while pluralistic juries would need to be formed and processed another way.

Since juries are groups, precautions need to be taken to prevent groupthink. In a deliberative jury, special precautions need to be taken because there is a strong desire to build consensus. In a pluralist jury, there is a strong sense of authority which sends up a groupthink red flag.

A good and interesting read, even though I didn't understand all of it. Some day I'll learn enough to keep up. I suggest giving the article a read.

And have a good day.

Group Think and Ethical Decisions

A recent article mentioning groupthink:
Prentice, RA. Ethical Decision Making: More Needed Than Good Intentions. Financial Analysts Journal 2007 Nov/Dec;63(6): 17-30.

This article starts out reading like a litany of ways white collar criminals are victims: Obedience to Authority, Conformity Bias, Incrementalism, Groupthink, Overoptimism, Overconfidence, Self-serving Bias, Framing, Sunk Costs, and Loss. However, at the end, it seemed more like a warning to financial analysts--telling what they're up against--before telling them how to steer clear of these demons.

What devices can be used to avoid unethical decisions and practices? Debiasing, keeping ethics in the frame of reference, monitoring rationalizations, and acting courageously. Of course, if you want to know what all this jargon means, you'll need to read the article for yourself. I suggest you do, as it was a very good read and very informative.

And have a good day.

Groupthink and Diversity

Claudia Plaisted Fernandez had an article published recently in the Journal of Public Health Management Practice. The title is "Creating Thought Diversity: The Antidote to Group Think."

Again, diversity is promoted to prevent groupthink--this time through thought diversity. Fernandez gives us seven steps to thought diversity and, as rare as this has been so far, gives us a brief how-to for each step and even breaks one step down into 4 sub-steps. Previously, we had seen mostly lists of bumper sticker slogans but Fernandez goes a little detail. The article's only two pages long, so it's not very deep, but there is still depth to it.

It's a good 5-minute introduction to groupthink and thought diversity.

And have a good day.

Groupthink Awareness in the Credit Union

I was glad to see, coming through one of my RSS feeds, a brief in Credit Union Magazine about avoiding groupthink. It's the 20-second tour of the problem, but it looks like it's giving some good information for prevention. It's actually a note telling about a report in Board Member, but I don't have access to Board Member to read the whole report.

Another good thing about the brief is that it mentions diversity as one of the ways to prevent groupthink. Groupthink is not only something you worry about when you've got your team but something you worry about when you're setting up your team.

Good work, Credit Union Magazine.

And have a good day.

source:
Avoiding Groupthink is a Good Thing. Credit Union Magazine. 2007 Oct; 73(10):16.

The Best Time for Collective Efficacy

My feed for groupthink brought me an interesting article on collective efficacy (CE)--"When confidence comes too soon: collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time" by Jack A. Goncalo and Evan G. Polman. (Published in the Academy of Management Proceedings; 8/1/2007).

Goncalo and Polman define collective efficacy as "a group's shared belief that they can execute a task successfully." Collective efficacy is important, if it comes at the right time. (Hint: not at the beginning of the project.) If CE arrives too early, project success rates go down. If a group pays its dues and then achieves CE, the projects tend to be more successful.

At least, that's how I interpreted the article.

So, learn about your team's strengths and weaknesses, then build on that learning to know your project will succeed. And your project will be more likely to succeed. And read the article for yourself to get more than just a summary of the summary.

And have a good day.

Moderate Modulation

Remember high school band? We had to learn a bunch of music terms and their definitions. Let's see if I can make Mr. Anderson proud:

Acoustics: the science of sound
Staccato: light and separated
Marcato: heavy and separated
embouchure: position of the mouth on the mouthpiece
syncopation: rhythm with the accent on the weak beat
modulation: to change key

Speaking of modulation, this blog is changing keys. I'm done with the library 2.0 bit and am now able to use this blog to speak my mind no matter what the 2.overlords think about it. In other words, if you have this blog in your RSS feed because of a 2.0 assignment, now might be a good time to unsubscribe. I call this fair warning.

Okay, if you have the stomach, read on.

Because of 2.0, I had subscribed to a search feed. The search in question: (groupthink or "group think"). One of the articles which came up was quite enlightening. It's Andrew McIntyre's review of the book What's Left? by Nick Cohen. McIntyre is from a think tank called the Institute of Public Affairs, which claims to be independent. By their thinking, I'm a moderate. I don't think any conservative would claim me as one of their own. So we can rule that out. However, this book review states the following characteristics about liberals:

• uncompromising hatred of America
• self-loathing
• attracted to Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung
• sympathize with Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein
• chronically dishonest

Chronically dishonest? That's an ironic criticism. And there's nothing like being lectured on American patriotism by an Australian political think tank. But that's beside the point. I love America. I'm not self-loathing. I'm not attracted to that one group and I don't sympathize with the other. Honest. Therefore, I am not liberal (by McIntyre's criteria). If I am not liberal and I am not conservative, what does that make me? Moderate, by my estimation. This is good because everyone these days seems to claim to be moderate, but no one has had the evidence to back it up. Until now. So, allow me to proclaim myself to be the very first bona fide moderate. [applause]

I still haven't figured out how group-think found its way into the article's sub-title. McIntyre never explains it, defines it, or mentions it. I'm glad it's there, though. For, because of it, I was able to find myself without having to backpack across Europe, as so many do. That's always nice.

So, if you ever need a moderate's opinion and/or viewpoint just ask. I'll be glad to share with you ... in limited portions.

And have a good day.


Works cited:

McIntyre, A. WHAT'S Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way by Nick Cohen [book review]. Institute of Public Affairs Review. 2007 Jul; 59(2):53.

Advocating Devil's Advocates

In this, the latest installment of ideas for a focus/expertise for this blog, we look at a longtime interest of mine: group think. While definitions vary, I think of group think as the refrain from mentioning a plan's obvious flaw(s) in order to not disturb the feel-good social dynamics in a group. In other words, to keep a country-club atmosphere, don't say anything negative.

So here's how this will work:
1) I become an expert in group think by writing about it a lot
2) I win a Nobel prize for my expertise in group think
3) We have a party to celebrate my Nobel prize.

So we'd better start planning the party. We'll need refreshments. A band, maybe several; as it will probably demand a several day celebration. We'd best invite the President of the United States, or he'll be put off. Let him bring Cheney, too. We'll need a committee to organize the satellite celebrations in London, Moscow, Sydney, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, and Berlin. Better plan it for June, 2008. We want good weather, but we can't have the celebration too long after I win the prize.

Well, that's a good start. Just in time for lunch, too. Any thoughts?

Pros:
Great plan
We'll get started right away
I love it!
That's why you're the boss
Aces, chief

Cons:
None
I can't think of any
If there are flaws, it'd take Sherlock Holmes to find them

So we're off (to lunch)

And have a good day!