I use “Puppeteers” (thanks to Earl for the word) because demagogue has only negative connotations. I needed a more accommodating replacement. After all, I name Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler in my title!
If you are lucky, you follow Christ; if you are unfortunate, you follow Jim Jones. Allow others to do your thinking for you, and your life is a crapshoot! Demagogues never explain, never analyze, never compare; they always give you one option only, which you must follow on peril of your life or soul.
No Military in the world would ever encourage independent thinking or action. All armies are built on Groupthink!
To categorize Good and Evil is not the purpose here. That is hardly relevant or a fair test. After all, we have the benefit of hindsight and everybody already has an opinion about which historical figures are Good and which are Bad. That is except for the truly Stupid people, who will drink the Kool Aid and follow George W. Bush into the gates of hell.
Religious Manipulators are the most prevalent, the most charismatic and by far the likeliest to achieve success. Even Napoleon, Caesar, Hitler & Manson had a religious fervor about them. When all else fails, promise them Eternal Damnation or 41 Virgins, unless they are Gay. Fear is more powerful than Love, although the Propagandists will tell you otherwise. Every Manipulator knows better. When Christ preached Fealty, he was employing Fear. When he preached Love, he knew that would make them feel good. But Fear was the key.
Open the Bible to any page and you will discover the Technique: tell them what they may NOT do. The more Sins, the better! The more Restrictions, the better! No Religion is based on Tolerance and “Can Dos”. It is the Restrictions, which form the parameters. Those Cults, led by Sexual Deviants, are given the most restrictions. No study has been done to date, but I would wager that most of the Christian Mass Murderers, Rapists & Serial Killers are Catholic. No Christian Sect I know of surpasses Catholicism in Restrictions. And no other Sect has “Confession” as formal dogma. Catholics have Groupthink down to a Science.
Regardless of how ridiculous the command, the Flock must obey. The key is not to allow the Flock to know your real purpose. Generals reveal Tactics, not Strategies. What Minister, besides Reverend Ike, would stand in front of his congregation and declare he was in it for the money! What politician would declare the same! They all claim they do it for public service, democracy, national security and their legacy. Then they sell their services to whoever pays the best.
Look at the Successes of the GOP once they focused on Southern Bigots, the Rapture Right, unethical Big Business, Disaster Capitalists, the Selfish, the Immoral and the Obscene! Despite all the Obscenities of the George W. Bush administration, almost half the country is considering a vote for another Republican, John McCain, who is running on a Bush Platform. And no Republican president could survive without his own Party’s support. On the part of the American Electorate, is that Groupthink or what!
As you read the following Article, keep in mind the George W. Bush regime and any sect of any denomination of any church, mosque or synagogue.
Small Business Encyclopedia: Groupthink
Groupthink occurs when the pressure to conform within a group interferes with that group’s analysis of a problem and causes poor group decision-making. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages that can sometimes be obtained by making a decision as a group—bringing different sources of ideas, knowledge, and experience together to solve a problem. Psychologist Irving Janis defines groupthink as: “a mode of thinking people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures”. It can also refer to the tendency of groups to agree with powerful, intimidating bosses.
The concept of groupthink provides a summary explanation of reasons groups sometimes make poor decisions. Indeed, groups are supposed to be better than individuals at making complex decisions, because, through the membership, a variety of differing perspectives are brought to bear. Group members not only serve to bring new ideas into the discussion but also act as error-correcting mechanisms. Groups also provide social support, which is especially critical for new ideas. But when new perspectives are rejected (as in the “not invented here” syndrome), it is hard to correct errors. And if the social support is geared toward supporting the group’s “accepted wisdom”, the elements that can make groups better decision makers than individuals become inverted, and instead make them worse. Just as groups can work to promote effective thinking/decision making, the same processes which enhance the group’s operation can backfire and lead to disastrous results.
How Groupthink Works
Janis identified seven points on how groupthink works.
First, the group’s discussions are limited to a few alternative courses of action (often only two), without a survey of the full range of alternatives.
Second, the group does not survey the objectives to be fulfilled and the values implicated by the choice.
Third, the group fails to reexamine the course of action initially preferred by the majority of members from the standpoint of the nonobvious risks and drawbacks that had not been considered when it was originally evaluated.
Fourth, the members neglect courses of action initially evaluated as unsatisfactory—they spend little or no time discussing whether they have overlooked nonobvious gain.
Fifth, the members make little or no attempt to obtain information from experts (meaning outside the group experts) who can supply sound estimates of gains and losses to be expected from alternative courses of action.
Sixth, selective bias is shown in the way the group reacts to factual information and relevant judgments from experts.
Seventh, the members spend little time deliberating about how the chosen policy might be hindered by bureaucratic inertia or sabotaged by political opponents; consequently, they fail to work out contingency plans.
overestimation of group power and morality,
closed mindedness, and
pressures toward uniformity.
Group-think occurs when a group feels too good about itself. The group feels both invulnerable and optimistic. The group feels morally right. Linked to this attitude of perfection is a correlative close mindedness. Warnings are ignored. Messengers of difference are dismissed. Negative, stereotypical views of opponents are created and used. Finally, there is pressure for uniformity. A certain amount of self-censorship occurs. If individuals have questions, they keep them to themselves. This lack of dissent results in what Janis calls an “illusion of unanimity”. If any difference does occur, group pressure is applied to bring the dissident into line. Janis also mentions “the emergence of self-appointed mindguards—members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency”.
If these precipitating problems support tendencies to groupthink, there are predisposing conditions as well. Janis suggests four conditions that predispose a group to groupthink: cohesiveness, group isolation/ insulation, leader intimidation, and an absence of decision-making procedures. As a group “hangs together” and members grow to like each other, there will be greater pressure not to introduce disturbing information and opinions that might tear at that cohesiveness. Maintaining the good feelings that come from such cohesion become part of the group’s “hidden agenda.” The insulation of the policy-making group is another factor. Frequently groupthinking groups are removed from interaction with others, perhaps because of their position within the organization. Lack of impartial leadership is a third contributing cause. When powerful leaders want to “get their way” they can overtly and covertly pressure the group into agreement. Finally, the lack of a template or protocol for decision-making, or what Janis calls “norms requiring methodological procedures for dealing with decision making tasks,” can also contribute to groupthink.
How to Avoid Groupthink
There are several things businesspeople can do to avoid groupthink: follow good meeting procedures, including the development of an agenda; aim for proper and balanced staff work; present competing views; and attend to correlative meeting problems, like exhaustion. A template for discussion might also be useful. One suggestion is to use an “options memo technique” in which information is presented as a problem statement, a list of options, and a preliminary recommendation. The group then looks at the preliminary recommendation with at least four questions in mind: 1) is the logic correct? (in selecting the preliminary recommendation from among the options); 2) is the judgment correct? (the logic may be fine, but the judgment may be poor); 3) are there any problems or errors remaining in the preliminary recommendation?; and 4) can the preliminary recommendation be improved? In order to prevent group isolation, it may be helpful to bring in new participants on a regular basis, use outside experts, and invite the group to meet off-site so that changes in settings and surroundings are a stimulant.
To avoid groupthink, it is vital for the group leader to become a statesperson or conductor instead of a partisan virtuoso. Leadership almost always involves getting work done through others. High-quality decisions are not made through intimidation, whether intentional or unintentional. Some bosses have no idea why people do not speak up, while the reason they do not is because they are likely to be attacked. Bosses encourage the best performance from groups when they can alert them to the kind of review that is expected. If the leader can be clear, and temperate, there is a great likelihood that norms of disagreement will develop.
Finally, there is the cohesion process itself. Decision-making tears at the fabric of group cohesion, and it is the desire to preserve cohesion that is an underlying dynamic of groupthink. But if decisions lower group cohesion it is not necessary to avoid decisions; an alternative is to rebuild cohesion each time. One way to accomplish this rebuilding is to complete decision making by about 65 percent of the way through the meeting, then move on to brainstorming for the last 20-30 percent of the meeting. People who have differed before have a chance to continue to interact, now around less threatening, future-oriented items. This meeting technique allows for decompression, and for rebonding of the group.
Because of the flaws of individual decision-making—selective perception, excessive self-interest, limited knowledge, limited time—most important decisions today are made in groups. And groups can do a spectacular job; but they often do not. Meetings, the place where groups do their decision-making work, have a bad reputation these days, largely because of processes such as groupthink. Groupthink is the result of flawed procedures, poor leadership, insulation, and an unmanaged desire for the maintenance of group cohesion and its good feelings. These factors can be addressed positively, and group decision-making improved, while groupthink is kept to a minimum.
“Creating a Team of Individuals.” Journal of Management Development. September 1995.
Esser, James K. “Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. February-March 1998.
Janis, I. Crucial Decisions. Free Press, 1989.
Janis, I. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, 1983.
Janis, I., and L. Mann. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. Free Press, 1977.
Moorhead, Gregory, Christopher P. Neck, and Mindy S. West. “The Tendency Toward Defective Decision Making within Self-Managing Teams: The Relevance of Groupthink for the 21st Century.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. February-March 1998.
Neck, Christopher P., and Charles C. Manz. “From Groupthink to Teamthink: Toward the Creation of Effective Thought Patterns in Self-Managing Work Teams.” Human Relations. August 1994.
Neck, Christopher P., and Gregory Moorhead. “Groupthink Remodeled: The Importance of Leadership, Time Pressure, and Methodical Decision-Making Procedures”. Human Relations. May 1995.
Tropman, John E. Effective Meetings. Sage Publications, 1995.
Tabacco: Note that all formal religious groups and the George W. Bush administration all scrupulously AVOID taking any precautions against Groupthink! That is not done through ignorance but because when the goal is manipulation of the group, and not the pursuit of Truth or Logic, Thinking is anathema. Thinking could lead to objections, objections could lead to revolt, and revolt could lead to a change of leadership. No leader ever wants to be replaced through that process. That is why Groupthink is so prevalent and always has been. And nowhere is it more pervasive or successful than in the United States of Amnesia.
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World