It's tough subject matter, and a difficult watch at times, but anyone interested in a better understanding of impediments to collaboration (particularly in a boardroom environment) should watch the movie Conspiracy.
It tells the unspeakable story of the Wannassee conference of 1942, where the SS would establish the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". The secret meeting has participants that represent a number of boards, organizations, and branches within the Nazi Party. For the most part, these participants are under the impression that they will be forming a plan to deal with the large number of people to deal with (displace or other).
As it turns out, they learn that a definite solution has already been decided upon, and enacted in trials. The "solution" of course is genocide.
The movie explores some of the psychology in the room, and is an excellent study into the dangers of group-think. Despite having intelligent people in the room that must naturally question the unconscionable proposal; a meeting leader skilled at justify and leading decisions and a culture of intimidation find consensus and support for the plan to mass-murder.
It's an extreme case, but group-think is not uncommon in meetings. How can we manage it?
2 comments:
Stick to the Process! A hard thing to do indeed but if you want to avoid falling into the trap of group think you need to practice the appropriate processes that help circumvent the problem. One of the outcomes from a team building activity I ran this week that focused on the creative process was that the most successful group is the one that did not fall prey to group think. The most successful team was the one that had a clear cut process for determining the best ideas in the group, quantitative measurements. The groups that did not do so well were those that mimicked other teams in their design (the goal of the activity was to design and create a structure that would stay airbone the longest) so with the popular notion being the parachute, lots of teams went that route, though unsuccesful. Again, the winning team was the one that allowed each team member to explore their own ideas, build accordingly (resources did not inhibit this process) then test each idea seperately and according to the same measurements.
He/she that controls the process has as much power to lead as any. Sticking to the wrong process can be bad news. I would advocate, no, evangelize a fluid process. I would be interested to know why it worked in the team you describe. What conditions prevented anyone from controlling the process to meet their objectives?
I suppose you're right if part of the process is to evaluate the process...
Post a Comment