Groupthink

by Joan Marques

Published on this site: April 20th, 2005 - See more articles from this month...

This is an experienced based write up about the disheartening way group decisions are often made in professional environments. I made it a point not to write this article in an emotional state of mind, but to wait until I had slept and mulled over the issue for several nights. Yet, since my mind on the topic has not changed, I can safely state that this is definitely my conviction: group decisions are too often based on the preference of the member with either, the loudest voice, the strongest character, or the highest position in the group. As soon as you have such a person with a mental overweight in a team, groupthink happens. Groupthink is the occurrence where unanimity is obtained at the expense of quality decisions.

The other day I served as member of a group that was assigned to select speakers for a prestigious event. There would be three categories of speakers, and for each of the categories, a few candidates had registered.

The members of the judging group received a grade sheet with 10 important criteria to focus on, and the guideline to rate from 1 to 5: 1 representing unsatisfactory performance, and 5 excellence in the criterion listed.

There were 9 members in the "selection committee," as this group named itself. The members took a few minutes after each speaker to grade him or her in silence on their sheets. The idea was, that the committee would convene at the end of all presentations, and select the winners on basis of the scores. Well, as you may have already expected, this was not exactly the way things really turned out.

There was actually just one category, in which the committee unanimously, and on basis of their scores, selected the speaker, who, beyond doubt, was the best of her cohort.

In the other categories, however, there were complications. And the root of these complications, as I see now, and saw then, was that most of the members allowed themselves to be guided by their personal acquaintance with some of the contestants. Where emotional linkage was present, rational selection flew out of the door. Where familiarity of backgrounds and levels of friendship were involved, pre-formulated criteria became null and void.

And there I was, with a limited knowledge of any of the contestants, and trying to rate as fairly as possible on basis of neatly listed criteria such as: eye-contact, microphone-handling, eloquence, meaning of the speech, identification of the audience with the speaker, timeliness of the delivery, and some other beautifully worded rules. And there were some of the other committee members, advocating for their personal favorites, not because of the quality in performance of these people, but just because of who they were! And then there were the sheep, who, despite their own rational rating, got overpowered by the loudest voice in the team, and surrendered.

The last case of the night was the most interesting and illustrative one. It pertained to the rating of a contestant whose speech had been twice as long as it should have been, which, to me, was a clear display of improper preparation. The contestant had further been extremely nervous and cramped up during her speech, and had not been easily understandable due to a probable speech impediment. Finally, this participant had been able to lose me several times during her speech, because she had been grinding on about depressing issues that everyone actually wanted to forget on a happy event as the one they were auditioning for.

Now here's the real concerning part: Of the 9 jurors, 7 had graded her somewhere between mediocre and low, based on their perceptions, while they had graded another participant between upper-medium and high. And yet, when one of the jurors, who was obviously very well acquainted with the above mentioned speaker, started to blow off her advocacy campaign, with firmer voice every time someone dared to bring up a reason why this person should not be selected, 6 of these 7 people ultimately capitulated and voted for juror loud-voice's favorite candidate.

I was the only one who stuck to my guns, although 1 voice in 9 doesn't do too much good, of course.

Much later, one of the other jurors walked up to me and told me that, in retrospect, she was sorry that she had allowed herself to be influenced by the loud-voiced juror. All I could do was shake my head and hold back the words, "This is probably the herd mentality that mavericks like myself dread in workplaces: the approach that keeps things the way they are: wrong. It maintains dishonesty and unfairness in organizations, neighborhoods, countries, and in the entire world. And it prevents the really good from ever getting a chance."

In conclusion, here's the message: If you ever get invited into a committee and there is a choice to be made among human contestants, demand a silent vote before you start. Otherwise the problem as described above, may occur. And groupthink will happen. And choices will be made on who one knows rather than what one knows. And the world will be obstructed from becoming a better place.

Joan Marques emigrated from Suriname, South America, to California, U.S., in 1998. She holds a doctorate in Organizational Leadership, a Master's in Business Administration, and is currently a university instructor in Business and Management in Burbank, California. Look for her books "Empower the Leader in You" and "The Global Village" in bookstores online or on her website: http://www.joanmarques.com It is better to live in serene poverty than in hectic affluence. Everything has a price. The price for nurturing your soul is turning away from excessive stress, destruction of self-respect, and the constant strive in lifestyle with the Joneses. But it's worth it.