Sunstein
and Hastie talk about the dangers of “groupthink” in their article and how to
avoid these pitfalls (Sunstein &
Hastie, 2014). They explain that groups make errors for two main reasons. The first reason is called informational signals, which involves
members receiving the wrong signals from each other. The second error is reputational pressures, which is when members feel pressured into
silencing themselves or changing their views to avoid disapproval. These errors, according to Sunstein and
Hastie (2014), are that it can cause self-destructive decisions. The errors can be amplified instead of
corrected. They can fall victim to a
cascading effect, following actions of leading members blindly. They can polarize their decisions. And lastly, erroneously focus on common
information instead of innovative information.
These are all examples of how groups become dumber and can heavily
influence each other into bad decisions or avoid innovation all together.
In order for groups to become “wiser” they need to make sure they are
aggregating the information of their members and avoid the information signals
and reputational pressures. Sunstein and
Hastie (2014) suggest six ways where this can be achieved. The first way is Silencing the Leader. Leaders can promote openness of opinions
first by allowing other members to express their ideas first. Sometimes leaders or high status members of
the group can intimidate lower status members when they express their ideas
first, blocking these members from sharing their ideas. By allowing other members to openly express
their opinions first, I believe it allows for more creativity and sharing of
information on a more diverse level. Another
way to encourage positive group decisions is to “Prime” Critical Thinking.
Leaders should encourage members to share information. This can be done by encourage members to get
along with each other through various tasks or encouraging members to disclose
information early on. A third tactic is
to Reward Group Success. “Identification with the group’s success is
more
likely to ensure that
people will say what they know, regardless of whether it fits “the party line” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 98). I have witnessed this during conferences
where individuals are more likely to contribute and disclose when they feel
involved and rewarded for participating in a group decision. A third way to achieve group cohesion is
through Assigning Roles. This is a great way to encourage group
members to contribute especially if they know before-hand that they have been
chosen to disclose specific information based on their expertise. Appointing
A Devil’s Advocate ensures that dominate positions do not lead the group
decision. This also helps group members
to share contrary ideas and promote diversity of thought. A similar strategy to appointing a devil’s
advocate is Establish Contrarian Teams
which similarly creates an environment where conformity is challenged. The last strategy that Sunstein and Hastie
suggest is the Delphi Method which is
a series of voting based on estimation. A simpler version of this would be “a
system in which ultimate judgments or votes are given anonymously but only
after deliberation”. This would seem to be a more democratic approach
to innovative decision-making.
McKeown states that “habit will avoid change” (McKeown, 2014, Part 4, section 1).
This is another example of how group
thinking can affect how a team innovates. Sometimes as a group, it’s easier to fall back
on information that is comfortable and mainstream then try to break away from
the norm. He goes on to say that “it is
commonplace for the newest to be ignored or imperfect” (Part 4, Section 2). A challenge for groups and teams are to avoid the
kinds of pitfalls that can cause members to fall into unproductive synchronous thinking.
Good smart ideas can sometimes get lost
in what McKeown (2014) terms as “dumb processes”.
I believe you can combine the concepts from McKeown’s
book and the methods suggested by Sunstein and Hastie. McKeown (2014) explains that you can win
through an innovation process as long as you keep your ideas useful and popular
in the real world. He explains this is
done by adapting to the environment as an organization. Sunstein and Hastie explain the importance of cohesiveness between members of a group to
avoid pitfalls that can cause bad decision-making. In simplest terms, there must be a level of
synergy not only amongst the innovation team, but also between the team and
those users who will benefit from the product or service. It is a holistic approach to innovation that
suggests that innovation may start in the mind of one, but to expand that kind
of creative energy outwards involves a process of comprehension and
understanding between members and the ability to adapt and change when needed.
References
McKeown, M. (2014). The innovation book [Kindle Version]. Retrieved
from Amazon.com
