Viewpoint

Groupstink! Sacred Cows, the CIA, and Your Organisation

I prefer to use the term ‘groupstink’ over ‘groupthink’.  It is a less precise, but more vivid image of the foul messes groups of people can get into unless they are vigilant about challenging their own ‘sacred cows’, assumptions and thought processes on a regular basis.  Groupthink was a concept first developed in the 1970s by the psychologist Irving Janis.  In today’s frenetic “What breakthrough idea have you created for me in the last five minutes” culture there is always the danger of us being negligent about ideas and concepts that have been around for a while.  Groupthink/stink is such a concept.  Let’s remind ourselves how we can recognise and counter it in our own organisations.

The main reason groupthink has been put back in the spotlight is the recent U.S. Senate Select Committee’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment on Iraq.  A major conclusion in the report is that:

“The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme. This ‘group think’ dynamic led IC analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD programme as well as ignore or minimise evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programmes. This presumption was so strong that formalised IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilised.”

So, the WMD/Iraq assumption was so powerful that analysis was based on expectation rather than fact.  The Committee goes on to say that, “The presumption that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to restart its WMD efforts essentially became a hypothesis in search of evidence.”  Related to this reliance on presumption is the concept of ‘layering’ – the process of building an assessment primarily on previous judgments without any substantial new intelligence.   If assumptions are not challenged, previous judgments critiqued and counter-indicative information sought out, we can quickly enter into the Swamp of Delusion.

Every organisation needs to be vigilant against creeping ‘groupstink’.  First, what are some of the conditions that can give rise to it?

• Inclusion in the group must be ‘earned’; the harder a group is to join the more highly valued membership is and the deeper the loss of not being in the group anymore;
• Insulation of the group from other groups ;
• Homogeneity of the group;
• Long period of working together so that strong bonds have been built;
• No tradition of impartial leadership;
• Time and performance pressure;
• High risk environment; common enemy and competition;
• High level of complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty.

What are some of the danger signs we should look for?

• Over valuing of harmonious relationships in the group;
• Overestimation of the group; a sense of invulnerability and moral certainty – ‘we know what is true’;
• Not seeking expert or outside opinion;
• Direct pressure on dissenters; pressure to conform, be supportive, and withhold criticism;
• Self censorship; minimising the importance of doubts and counterarguments;
• Tendency of the group to look at only a few alternative ideas or perspectives;
• Being highly selective in gathering information;
• Failure to examine risks associated with the preferred choice;
• Failure to re-examine alternatives;
• Sharing of stereotypes;
• High value placed on a showing of unanimity;
• Rationalisation of poor decisions made in the past;
• Failure to make contingency plans.

Recognise any of these symptoms in your own organisation?  They can result in terrible, irrational decision making, and a chronic lack of innovation and enterprise.  Any organisation will demonstrate some of them to some degree.  The goal should be to keep them at a manageable level.  Here are some tips for doing that:

• Appoint a ‘devil’s advocate’ at the start of every meeting; someone who’s job is to ask the tough questions, challenge assumptions, find other alternatives.  Don’t choose the same person every time;
• Break into sub-groups to generate more ideas;
• Ensure groups are diverse;
• Use an independent facilitator or an outside authority;
• Have leaders and strong influencers speak last;
• Explore multiple ‘what-if’ scenarios; what might happen if it doesn’t go well;
• Use tools that encourage free expression and anonymity;
• Once a solution is reached, create another one (it is often more robust than the first);
• Hold a ‘second chance’ meeting as an opportunity to reconsider the chosen course of action;
• Hold a decision review meeting with a neutral group;
• Keep reminding ourselves that not all decisions should be made at Internet speed.

Groupstink should be distinguished from collaborative consensus-building.  The latter is a productive struggle through multiple perspectives and options.  It is highly dependent on high levels of constructive conflict and dialogue.  The possibility for this occurring, of course, is dependent on the climate of openness set by those at the top of the organisation.  Andy Grove of Intel fame once said, “It takes years to build a climate of openness, but one impulsive act by a senior person to a divergent point of view can quickly destroy it.” 

So stay alert for groupstink.  Sniff the organisational air once in a while to see if it needs freshening up.  A few corporate scandals might have been avoided if a few sacred cows had been told to do their business elsewhere.

<< back to viewpoints