June 4, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Managing Risk
June 5, 2012 at 2:38 am
Lincoln was taking steps to avoid the psychological phenomenon of 'Group Think'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
The classic example of Group Think also involves a US president - Kennedy following Eisenhower and CIA instructions unthinking during the Bay of Pigs incident.
Lincoln was acting very wisely 🙂
June 5, 2012 at 6:11 am
Dissension / opposition within groups is necessary to ensure a better decision or plan. I remember learning in college about the role of the "central negative" in a group and that rather than viewing such people or views as "not a team player", it should be viewed as strengthening the team (so long as the person / view is not just arguing without being constructive). Not allowing for this opposition is part of what lead to the Challenger disaster back in 1986. People who voiced concerns about proceeding with the launch were, in effect, told that they were acting against the team. This article has some of the info we learned about in that class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Thiokol-NASA_conference_call
I have often found it to be very insightful as to the merit (or lack thereof) of an idea when the person / people advocating the idea cannot handle any opposition to it.
SQL# — https://SQLsharp.com/ ( SQLCLR library ofover 340 Functions and Procedures)
Sql Quantum Lift — https://SqlQuantumLift.com/ ( company )
Sql Quantum Leap — https://SqlQuantumLeap.com/ ( blog )
Info sites — Collations • Module Signing • SQLCLR
June 5, 2012 at 6:21 am
A good book on this subject to which I have recently been introduced is "Death By Meeting" by Patrick Lencioni - Mr. Lencioni outlines a hypothetical business situation - a "fable" - in which the lack of open discussion and dissension among the senior managers in a company cause all kinds of problems (including useless meetings).
http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_3?asin=B002V0QNS0&qid=1338898741&sr=1-3
June 5, 2012 at 6:28 am
The classic example of Group Think also involves a US president - Kennedy following Eisenhower and CIA instructions unthinking during the Bay of Pigs incident.
We are currently living in a era of massive group think, spurred on by mass communications and agendas of avarice. A analytical student of history can see that this will not end well for the majority of the population.
June 5, 2012 at 6:29 am
Another example of GroupThink I used to teach was the Challenger space shuttle disaster. When it came time for the vote on whether to allow lift off or not even though the shuttle booster engineers did not think it was safe as the rockets had not been tested at the low temperatures expected that day no one wanted to be the guy who said no.
I've always felt it is necessary to have one person on the team be the voice of dissent. Not just to be negative, but to ask why. Try to keep the group from agreeing just for the sake of agreement.
Sometime compromise is not the right alternative.
June 5, 2012 at 6:58 am
I have to plead guilty to being one of the "loud" people. But I do take measures to make sure all voices are heard, all viewpoints presented.
Two things I've found help prevent the kind of destructive groupthink you're talking about here:
1. Genius is always a minority, by definition
2. Creativity != "that's how we always do it"
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 5, 2012 at 7:00 am
GSquared (6/5/2012)
2. Creativity != "that's how we always do it"
AMEN!
June 5, 2012 at 7:12 am
Some people tend to place a higher value on their opinions than others do and those tend to be the people I block out while some can be the loudest in the room and tend to rub nearly everyone the wrong way but they are usually correct in what advice they give. I used to work with a guy that was very difficult to get along with but he knew what he was doing so that outweighed his personality ticks and he was listened to. Just because you might not like someone on a personal level doesn't mean they are wrong in their professional actions and/or opinions.
Years ago I had to go to this so-called team building thing for two days. This is where you will learn a lesson not so much about how to work together but who is truly useless in your organization. We were charged with the simple task of formulating a plan to pick up a bucket using two ropes. This obviously does not require a meeting of the minds so a few of us got started on the task. Several others complained that we were not being 'nice' because we didn't welcome their input. We knew what we were doing and had an instant plan and we were also competing against another team so time was a factor. So, I told these people we were not interested in what they have to say because we are doing this right now and they are wasting time. Needless to say I was never popular with that click again but I never lost sleep over it.
The Ego or a bad attitude are the real hurdles here. You can put together a diversified group but if one or more are pig headed it tends to go sour. Check the ego at the door but that shouldn't be confused with holding on to confidence if you know you are right. Equally, admit when you are wrong.
Cheers
June 5, 2012 at 7:38 am
Good post Steve.
Solomon Rutzky (6/5/2012)
Dissension / opposition within groups is necessary to ensure a better decision or plan. I remember learning in college about the role of the "central negative" in a group and that rather than viewing such people or views as "not a team player", it should be viewed as strengthening the team (so long as the person / view is not just arguing without being constructive). Not allowing for this opposition is part of what lead to the Challenger disaster back in 1986. People who voiced concerns about proceeding with the launch were, in effect, told that they were acting against the team. This article has some of the info we learned about in that class:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Thiokol-NASA_conference_call
I have often found it to be very insightful as to the merit (or lack thereof) of an idea when the person / people advocating the idea cannot handle any opposition to it.
I agree. All thou, there was an article in a Swedish paper I read about this. Older generations ofter have issues with younger ones in Sweden because of this. Those born in the ~70-80s are often asking a lot of questions and coming with ideas and the older generations often feels like they themselves are being questioned, like their word is not good enough and it's a new threatening situation for them. I agree with you Solomon Rutzky, this creates opportunity for improvements and should be the future.
June 5, 2012 at 7:56 am
Gads, how many times has a team with a sound plan been overruled by a "know-it-all" manager who doesn't want to listen? Better yet, how about the seldom seen or heard system architect who swoops in and says "you have to do it this way because we say so"? Just those two scenarios alone have probably cost companies billions (trillions?) of dollars in lost opportunities and waste over the years.
I never feel comfortable when things come together too easily. A dissenting voice or a well placed "what if" is always welcome because it proves that the team is looking at the problem from more than one angle.
June 5, 2012 at 8:38 am
There is an outstanding deconstruction of the challenger mess (the task force was lead by Richard Feynman, an outside the box thinker par excellence) in one of Edward Tufte's books -- unfortunately I can't remember which. He approaches it from the information visualization point of view, but primarily how conventional ways of presenting data often invite sloppy thinking, or no thinking at all.
June 5, 2012 at 9:02 am
For some reason I always seem to be the "dissenting voice". I'd like to think it's not because I'm a know-it-all, but because all to often decisions are made because "that's the way we do it here". My first job in IT the development team had 3 very strong personalities and our design meetings could be pretty intense, but we always walked out knowing we had the best design that we could with the knowledge and abilities we had at that time. None of us took it personally and we all worked to get the job done.
At another job people were more concerned with getting along than getting things done well and I nearly went insane. Any disagreement was taken personally and maintaining the status quo was the most important thing.
Disagree, discuss, and debate the merits of each point of view and make an informed decision.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
June 5, 2012 at 9:09 am
When I was still working in my first engineering job, a manager explained to me the unwritten company policy for success: "if you did things the old way and failed, you got to keep your job; however, if you tried something new and failed, your career would be over".
Great incentive plan huh? I wonder if that had anything to do with the company's consistent delivery of new products and systems 1 to 3 years behind schedule?
June 5, 2012 at 9:17 am
GSquared
Creativity != "that's how we always do it"
I would like to suggest a 3rd option to remember:
"that's how we always do it" != Reason to change
Just because something has been done for a long time, doesn't mean it is not the right solution to use. Often, an older solution is based on better knowledge of the problem. Investigate why it was implemented to determine whether it needs to be changed.
RMc
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply