|
Enjoying Your Work Richard Brislin |
Devil’s advocate is
one approach to
combat ‘groupthink’When people work with each other for long periods of time, they often form close ties and strong emotional bonds. When they come together to make decisions, they may consider various alternatives. Often, however, there are pressures to go along with what is clearly a favored position. This recommendation for action may be preferred by the highest-ranking executive, a colleague who has recently done favors for people or an especially popular individual. When people do not consider various alternatives and go along with the group so as to maintain workplace harmony, they are guilty of "groupthink."
This term, coined by Yale University's Irving Janis, refers to uncritical thinking that is meant to maintain closeness within the group. Consider a meeting where managers, who have worked with each other for 10 or more years, are considering introducing a new product line. Several of the managers have put in considerable time and energy into work on this issue, and they recommend steps to begin manufacturing, quality control and marketing. But two of the group members have reservations. One feels that the new product line cannot be protected by patents. Consequently, competitors can quickly introduce "knockoffs," and this will confuse the company's long-time customers. Another manager feels that insufficient attention has been given to employee safety concerns given the new manufacturing processes that will be introduced. Will the two doubters speak up? The pressures they face are a major part of groupthink analysis.
Group members place pressures on those who disagree. At times, there will be appeals to loyalty. There will be reminders of good group decisions made in the past. There can be reminders of outside pressures, such as investors' disappointment with performance of the company's stock in recent months. Another reason people do not speak up is that they feel "the train has left the station." So many people support the decision that group members feel enthusiastic about moving ahead in a positive direction. Individuals who bring up objections may be perceived as malcontents, killjoys, and troublemakers.
Good executives, recognizing the possibility of groupthink, take steps to overcome it. I have been at meetings where the leader has said, "I don't hear any objections to this proposal. This is bad, because it may mean that we are not considering all alternatives and are frittering away opportunities to improve the proposal." Other executives appoint a manager who takes the role of the devil's advocate. To fulfill the role, the manager must bring in reasons why the proposal is not a good idea. If the person does a half-hearted job and does little more than support the proposal through weak counterarguments, this will be reflected in the manager's performance evaluation.
The goal of this exercise is to make sure that all positive and negative aspects of various proposals have been thoroughly examined. Many times, thoughtful objections are integrated into revisions of the proposal, and the improvements increase the chances of eventual company success.
See the Columnists section for some past articles.
The purpose of this column is to increase understanding of human behavior as it has an impact on the workplace. Given the amount of time people spend at work, job satisfaction should ideally be high and it should contribute to general life happiness. Enjoyment can increase as people learn more about workplace psychology, communication, and group influences.
Richard Brislin is a professor in the College of Business Administration, University of Hawaii. He can be reached through the College Relations Office: cro@cba.hawaii.edu
