Bad call, ref!
You slam down the Pepsi you’ve been slurping, spilling some in the chips and dip and splattering some on your Vikings jersey. Who did they get to referee this game anyway? A couple of school kids?
Your friend and fellow Vikings-fan Jeff pipes up, noting that the refs called the same play our way last time-but nobody is in the mood to be rational. You chuck a pillow at him, making him spill his Pepsi, while the rest of your friends mercilessly heckle him until he takes back the ridiculous comment.
What is Jeff thinking? Any true Vikings fan would know the refs were the reason for this atrocious game, as well as the team’s 0-6 record thus far-it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with their coaching strategy, less-than-stellar running game, or their three fumbles in the first half. After the group outburst, you notice that, for the rest of the game, Jeff keeps his mouth shut about the calls, limiting his comments to hearty cheers.
Good.
Team alliances are just one binding factor that can cement people in a particular way of thinking and behaving. Once established in a tight group, it’s hard to go against the flow; just look at what happened to Jeff when he offered a logical alternative for why the referee made the call he did. Instead of risking further heckling or group rejection, Jeff shut his mouth.
Social-psychologists would explain this phenomenon as “Groupthink.” It’s our human tendency to try to fit in-to seek belonging with a group of similar people and to preserve group unity by adhering to the ideas, beliefs, and social norms of this group. The problem is, “preserving group unity” means rejecting people and ideas that don’t easily fit in that group.
Research on social identity suggests that this desire to form and preserve groups is built into our nature, and we construct these groups on the most minimal grounds. Our ancestors were more likely to get picked off by a saber tooth tiger if they were alone than if they were hunting in a group. Whether it’s in business conferences, junior high hallways, or the community soccer league, we like to know that somebody’s got our back. Like Jeff, we fear others’ disapproval and rejection, so we quickly learn and conform to group norms to stay “in.” By protecting people like us, we protect ourselves.
Belonging to a group isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It allowed our ancestors to survive. It gives us an identity and a way to interact with the world. But Groupthink becomes a problem in decision-making. Team allegiances and loyalty to group norms become so important that we lose our ability to think clearly and creatively.
Jeff piping up to defend the ref’s call went against unspoken group rules. Instead of entertaining his logical explanation, the group was only interested in a Vikings’ win. But without an alternative perspective, these fired-up fans couldn’t see the reason behind their losses-they wanted to believe it was the result of a string of bad calls.
Groupthink bans different solutions and ways of seeing. We think minimizing conflict is a positive thing, so we strive for comfortable consensus instead of disquieting dissent. We frown at the person in group meetings who stalls decision-making with questions and concerns. We look for desired outcomes in data even when the data contradicts our assumptions. Even in the face of conflicting information, research suggests that we’ll stick with our group and hold fast to our previously established ideas and beliefs.
Without actively inviting alternative perspectives, we get stuck like a scratched CD in the same type of processing and problem-solving, even when it might be necessary or beneficial to critically entertain other ideas. The 21st century presents a variety of problems and perspectives 20th century organizations didn’t have to take into account. It’s these new variables-a more diverse workforce, changing consumer needs, global competition-that organizations should consider when planning and strategizing. Active dissenters and conflicting information are often mistaken as barriers to progress or even personal attacks. But it’s these other perspectives that compel stagnant groups to greater creativity and innovation in a 21st century world, in a world that requires different ways of thinking and doing.
For the sake of belonging and security (or simply avoiding embarrassment), we too often stick to organizational norms and stifle dissenting perspectives. In fact, dissenters may be an organization’s best guard against a slew of unintended consequences-disengaged employees, high turnover rates among particular groups, a decline in creativity and innovation, or company blunders. Employing a variety of perspectives will allow you to see a variety of problems and solutions, equipping your organization to tackle 21st century problems from more effective, efficient, and innovative angles.
How will your organization invite healthy dissent?
Think About It:
1) Is your organization quick to stifle opposition in order to avoid conflict? What tactics can your group use to invite these alternative perspectives and constructive criticism?
2) How you practice a healthy measure of dissent in team meetings?
3) How does your organization invite and respect a variety of perspectives as useful for anticipating a variety of problems and proposing alternative solutions?
Tags: Dissent, Fellow Vikings, Fumbles, Group Research, Group Unity, Groupthink, Heckling, Human Tendency, Outburst, Pepsi, Referee, Refs, Running Game, Saber Tooth Tiger, School Kids, Social Identity, Social Norms, Social Psychologists, Tight Group, True Vikings Fan
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
