Groupthink

From wikipedia -

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents (the "outgroup").

I had been thinking a lot about this phenomenon this week, then I saw the article in the Sunday Star Ledger, "Panel that absolved priest now under fire." Despite a priest's confession of sexual abuse of a teen-aged boy to police, documents from the criminal trial, and the priest's agreement with law enforcement pledging never to work with children again, a review board appointed by the Archbishop of the Newark Diocese found that no sexual abuse had occurred.  And now six years later it is revealed that the priest in question has been back working with teenagers and children.  A church agency representative is quoted: "It's hard to understand how, after reading Father Fugee's confession, any review board [consisting mostly of lay people, by the way] or bishop thought this man belonged back in ministry."

No sense bashing the Catholic Church here, because you really don't have to go too far to find plenty of examples of otherwise good people turning a blind eye to evil. Consider Nazi Germany, or slavery in the United States - whole societies have found ways to convince themselves that people doing bad things to other people is just, well, a necessary evil.

But groupthink is not always found in situations involving outright evil.  Being a field service representative to school boards across northern New Jersey offered a fascinating vantage point from which to observe groupthink and its effects.  At least once a week - especially after new school board members were sworn in - I would get a phone call; "I'm new on my school board, and something our board is doing just doesn't seem right to me," the voice would say, timidly.  Sometimes it was just a misunderstanding and I would explain why the board was doing something the way they were doing it.  But often I was shocked - decisions the board was making that was not their right to make; concealing the decision-making process from the public; ignoring their responsibilities while getting involved in the day-to-day running of the school.

Of course there are gray areas: is it OK for the board president to poll members of the board by email as long as there is never a majority of board members communicating through the same email string?  Then accumulating the responses and taking action accordingly?  Well, it may seem to meet legal standards, but in fact it is purposely - consciously and by design - skirting the spirit of the law.  School boards are supposed to convene and deliberate in public.

I have found that the public usually selects good people - well-intended people willing to volunteer their time for the community - to serve on school boards.  It's what happens after they are sworn in that goes wrong.  Somehow, through unspoken means, there comes to be an understanding that taking shortcuts is part of the way business is done.  Few people ask questions, or do any research on their own time.  Independent thinking flies out the window.  Somehow a consensus forms around an idea or course of action, and bad or even stupid decisions are made - ones where anyone who comes along later from outside the group would say "what the hell were they thinking?"

My theory is this - getting elected to a public position brings a great sense of pride and acceptance, like Sally Field accepting her first Academy Award: "Wow, you really do like me!"  Then you are sworn in before family, friends, and neighbors.  You've made it - public adoration!  Next step is becoming a good member of your new club, and it's sort of intimidating because there is much to learn about how the board operates, gets along, makes decisions, and of course everything you need to learn about public education. Everyone on the board knows so much, and you are new - the last thing you want to do is rock the boat!

Sadly, for most people serving on the board their own independent thinking never enters the picture.  The board becomes your home for public respect, and a new group of "friends" who value "getting along" over doing the right thing.  Eventually you learn to ignore the little voice in your head that compelled you to run for board - and make things better - in the first place.

For those board members who still do hear that little voice in their head occasionally, the following things are wrong to do:

• Letting district or board leadership off the hook when they don't respond to legitimate requests of the board
• Accepting meeting minutes that mean nothing
• Accepting meeting minutes that purposely exclude what the board didn't want the public to hear, even if it was said or voted on in public
• Allowing board committees to meet without reporting back to the full board
• Sitting in silence when questions from the public get vague, misleading, or untruthful responses
• Shutting off your independent thinking when alternative ideas are offered - just because they did not come from "the group."

And if you are a member of the public and can't quite figure out what is going on with your board, it's probably because groupthink has taken over.  You might consider voting in a new group.