Group Think Symdrome
Related to the previous artilce "Hidden Knife", after more data gathered on 7th Sept
Group think is a common phenomena. A group of people who think alike and easily reach a consensus or conclusion. This can lead to consequences, positive or negatvie, intended or un-intended.
We are continueing with our observations and discussion of a management committee who has decided to officially pass a judgment against a staff's behavior, from the perspective of Group Think.
Someone, say a member of a management committee or the chairperson expresses his or her dis-satifaction or dis-appointment about a staff behavior, a group think mechanism is activated under the following circumstances.
- The chairperson initiates the move. This can quickly result in echo from quite a number of the committee members. Majority would want to sing along with the chairperson, who may be a big boss.
- A homogeneous or cohesive number of people in the group, which could be a majority. This could be they have similar thinking preferences and oreintation, behavioral styles. Whoever voice an opinion (against somebody else) the same echo is the response. The rest of the members may go along, not wanting to rock the boat, or have no stake in the affairs, or also sincerely agree with them.
- Most of the members may add in similiar opinions, without knowing the consequence is an official letter to the "accused" person. Some of them may regret, feel bad that the unpleasant consequences were not intended.
(No one is a saint or perfect person, there are always some weaknesses in every one, and if the focus is on the weakness, a lot of observations can be gathered. Unfortunate thing is that such gathering of observatons become the conclusion!)
I think the above Group Think Symdrome is common and natural. The question is what would be a good process to ensure professionalism and objectivity?
In the above scenarios, I suggest
a) Deliberately the whole group be facilitated to play an opposite role i.e. to also amplify the strengths, not just the weaknesses.
b) Whatever maybe the outcome from the above, evaluate against the severity of the action to be taken, in this case, issuing an official letter with "bad news"
c) Of course, before such issuance of letter, the person must be adequatedly informed , communicated and coached (which normally shoule resolve the issue).
Next related article "Question of Team Player"
In another forum we will disucss how we go about coaching the organisation and the "victim"
Group think is a common phenomena. A group of people who think alike and easily reach a consensus or conclusion. This can lead to consequences, positive or negatvie, intended or un-intended.
We are continueing with our observations and discussion of a management committee who has decided to officially pass a judgment against a staff's behavior, from the perspective of Group Think.
Someone, say a member of a management committee or the chairperson expresses his or her dis-satifaction or dis-appointment about a staff behavior, a group think mechanism is activated under the following circumstances.
- The chairperson initiates the move. This can quickly result in echo from quite a number of the committee members. Majority would want to sing along with the chairperson, who may be a big boss.
- A homogeneous or cohesive number of people in the group, which could be a majority. This could be they have similar thinking preferences and oreintation, behavioral styles. Whoever voice an opinion (against somebody else) the same echo is the response. The rest of the members may go along, not wanting to rock the boat, or have no stake in the affairs, or also sincerely agree with them.
- Most of the members may add in similiar opinions, without knowing the consequence is an official letter to the "accused" person. Some of them may regret, feel bad that the unpleasant consequences were not intended.
(No one is a saint or perfect person, there are always some weaknesses in every one, and if the focus is on the weakness, a lot of observations can be gathered. Unfortunate thing is that such gathering of observatons become the conclusion!)
I think the above Group Think Symdrome is common and natural. The question is what would be a good process to ensure professionalism and objectivity?
In the above scenarios, I suggest
a) Deliberately the whole group be facilitated to play an opposite role i.e. to also amplify the strengths, not just the weaknesses.
b) Whatever maybe the outcome from the above, evaluate against the severity of the action to be taken, in this case, issuing an official letter with "bad news"
c) Of course, before such issuance of letter, the person must be adequatedly informed , communicated and coached (which normally shoule resolve the issue).
Next related article "Question of Team Player"
In another forum we will disucss how we go about coaching the organisation and the "victim"
posted by QuaSyLaTic @ Saturday, September 09, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home