When Consensus is a Bad Thing: Avoiding Organizational Group Think

In my last blog, I wrote about the importance of an organization being guided by a set of core values. I used the term “consensus” to describe the process of dialing in on the specific values all members of the organization can support.

Consensus requires intentional effort by a group to work through objections and arguments against a decision. Consensus, when done right, is a good thing. However, when members of a group prioritize harmony and quick agreement over critical thinking, their decision-making ability is no longer reliable; they may be engaged in a psychological phenomenon called Groupthink.

Social psychologist and Yale researcher Irving Janis first wrote about the concept of Groupthink in 1972, when he identified eight symptoms of the phenomenon. These symptoms include:

• Illusion of Invulnerability: Obvious dangers are ignored; members are overly optimistic and willing to take extraordinary risks.
• Collective Rationalization: Members of the group develop rationalizations to explain away any warning contrary to the group’s thinking.
• Illusion of Morality: Members of the group believe their decisions are morally correct and ignore any ethical consequences of their decisions.
• Self-Censorship: Members of the group withhold dissenting views, keep silent about their misgivings, and minimize the importance of their doubts.
• Illusion of Unanimity: Members of the group falsely perceive that everyone agrees with the group’s decision; silence is seen as consent.

There are numerous examples of groupthink in our history, including the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the complacency that allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of the most famous resulted in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In each of these cases, the individuals responsible for making decisions caved to the Illusion of Invulnerability, rationalized their decisions based on their perceived moral superiority, and mistook the silence of self-censoring members as consent and agreement with the group’s decisions. The results were catastrophic.

Any organization striving for excellence must avoid Groupthink at all costs.

In Emergency Communications Centers, as well as other public safety agencies, the concept of Groupthink threatens to derail efforts to achieve the mission and vision of the organization. As Jeff McGill once wrote in an article on Police1.com, most agency leaders have been promoted from inside the agency. Managers were once supervisors, who were once CTOs, who were once line level Telecommunicators. They know the agency inside and out. They have the history and challenges that have been overcome to bring the organization to its current point. Growing leaders from within has its benefits, loyalty to the agency being high among them. But this loyalty, along with a strong group identity and a determined charismatic leader, can lead to Groupthink.

How does Groupthink affect the ECC?

First, when nobody is willing to challenge assumptions, problem-solving becomes inefficient. How many times have you heard someone say after the fact, “I knew that wouldn’t work.” The person making that statement was likely part of the process but failed to speak up for fear of being labeled difficult or obstructing the process. Instead, they allowed the group to make a bad decision that, if they are lucky, puts them back where they started, or worse, creates a more serious problem that is harder to address.

Next, Groupthink discourages critical thinking. When a group feels invulnerable and morally superior, they ignore pitfalls and begin to rationalize their decisions despite evidence that they are heading in the wrong direction. This can result in unnecessary and avoidable financial losses, and even legal liability.

Blindness to potentially negative outcomes leads to a lack of preparedness when decisions, in which we are overly confident, end up causing backlash. An organization that refuses to accept that its actions may not be right for its customers or constituents is bound to be surprised when things do not go according to plan. The organization is forced to react to unexpected consequences, rather than respond with a well-thought-out plan that anticipates potential complications. When we react, rather than respond to a situation, we often make even more mistakes and dig a bigger hole that is sometimes difficult to climb out of. When we respond, we can admit our mistakes, articulate a clear and credible reason for our actions, and vow to learn and move on.

Another pitfall of Groupthink is a resistance to new ideas. An agency involved in Groupthink is doing a disservice to the community. By refusing to embrace respectful dissent, the organization is stifling innovative approaches to providing public safety services. Staffing may suffer as individuals who do not agree with the direction of the agency leave for other jobs. Morale will suffer because those who recognize the lack of critical thinking become disillusioned with the decisions being made. Service will suffer because the leader will be surrounded by an echo chamber of people who refuse to challenge the status quo.

Avoiding Groupthink

The Catholic Church, an institution that has admittedly had its own issues over its 2000-year history, took steps to mitigate the dangers of Groupthink in 1587 when Pope Sixtus V established the office of the Promotor Fidei, or Promoter of the Faith, commonly known as “The Devil’s advocate.” The role of the Devil’s advocate was to prepare, in writing, all arguments against the canonization of an individual. Canonization, the process of elevating a person to Sainthood, is ripe for Groupthink. Individuals who rise to this level are usually well-loved, have contributed to the good of society, the Church, and have made some great personal sacrifices. Who would want to express doubt as to the holiness of someone so admired? Who would want to doubt that miracles attributed to the candidate’s intercession could be explained by some other means? Enter the Devil’s advocate.

The role of the Devil’s advocate is to question assumptions, challenge the invulnerability of the group and counter the group’s rationalizations. Questioning the morality of the group’s decisions, the Devil’s advocate is charged with speaking up, rather than self-censoring, when a question or concern arises about the decision-making process or the evidence on which the group is relying.

Leaders in any organization need their own Devil’s advocate, someone who thinks critically, is aware of both their own personal bias and organizational bias and knows how to articulate concerns respectfully and in a way that allows open discussion and disagreement. This is especially true in cases where there is strong group cohesion, where members feel a strong sense of belonging.

Here are some other suggestions for leaders who want to avoid Groupthink.

• Allow each individual group member to offer their own ideas before stating your opinion or preference. The leader is usually the most powerful person in the room. Their mere presence can intimidate others, leading to self-censuring.
• Assign at least one devil’s advocate. This must be someone well respected by the group to have the credibility necessary to be effective.
• Seek an outside opinion from a trusted and impartial individual.
• Encourage group members to share their opinions. Do not discourage dissent or challenges to prevailing opinions. Establish a ground rule at the beginning of the process that every opinion has value and must be considered.
• When possible before big decisions, hold a “second chance” meeting to allow members an opportunity to express any doubts or concerns. To be clear, I am not advocating for decision-making by committee for day-to-day challenges; that is the leader’s responsibility. But when leading through change, including establishing a culture of excellence, including representatives from all levels of the organization can be helpful. It is in this context that the idea of a “second chance” meeting can be helpful.
• Allow group members regular opportunities to share their ideas and thoughts. A regular meeting of command staff or other key groups can encourage more open communication.
• Establish common definitions or metrics to ensure everyone is basing decisions on the same information. If members of the group do not all agree on how to define a term or how to interpret data, the decision-making process will be both inefficient and ineffective.
• Consider allowing anonymous comments or suggestions. Although open, constructive disagreement is critical to building a cohesive team, allowing anonymous comments from time to time, may be helpful, especially in a very large organization.
• Strive for diversity among group members. Diversity not only of race or gender, but of roles within the agency, ranks, shifts, experience, and most importantly, diversity of opinion.

Changing the culture of an organization is not an easy task. It takes dedicated individuals willing to put themselves and their professional relationships on the line to do the right thing. Striving for true consensus can help build a cohesive and supportive team poised to take the agency to new heights. But be careful to avoid Groupthink. Empower every member of the organization to speak up, to respectfully dissent when necessary, and to challenge the status quo. Only when these things occur, can you start to achieve true excellence.