According to Wikipedia, the word collegiality connotes respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it. Collegiality does not mean that the board members expect to bond together as friends. Rather it strikes me as meaning an ability to work together as respected peers rather than adversaries; this seems like a proper and reasonable goal for 21 board members to aspire to. I do not believe that mutual respect precludes disagreement when it comes to priorities and processes.
Regarding “groupthink,” Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, calls it: “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”
Nope, no groupthink on this board! I see no striving for unanimity. If anything, I see many AMC members striving to stand out from the pack: preening, posturing, and bragging about how they are the lone voice of truth and fairness on the Board. I also don’t see the 21 AMC members comprising a cohesive in-group, nor do I foresee us becoming such. A little more cohesiveness would be a good thing; right now there is a great deal of animosity and mistrust and that makes it hard to really address sensitive topics and difficult projects—we need a bit more collegiality, actually.
A little more research about “groupthink” turned up this:
Social psychologist Clark McCauley identifies three conditions under which groupthink occurs:
• Directive leadership.
• Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
• Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.
Once again, I don’t see any of those traits on this AMC.
So perhaps it’s really not a case of groupthink when the AMC appears to circle the wagons defensively—perhaps it is simply a matter of actual agreement by a majority of the members.
No comments:
Post a Comment