The two articles on Followership demonstrate just how susceptible people are to outside influences. Concentrating on the article “Groupthink” by Irving Janis, it wasn’t at all surprising to me to see how people act in groups, but it is shocking to see how people “think” in groups. The socio-psychological theory known as the Group Effect or Bystander Effect explains that with the increase in the number of people in a group there is a decrease in the immediate action of the group to emergencies, however I would think that a group of people i.e. Kennedy and his administration, would act differently when lives of innocent people were at stake.
A main point this article brought up was the idea that a mutual enemy of the group is seen as immoral, weak, and stupid. The group has to unanimously agree to move towards some sort of decision, but this point also illustrates why disagreeing group members didn’t speak up. The disagreement of members could be viewed as a removal of the enemy’s weak title, and in turn giving them credit. This is obviously a fault in the system. A fault that if addressed may have changed history.
This article named silence as consent, but silence is more than consent. It is cowardly, it is lack of confidence, and it is a disappointment. Silence, in itself, is a crime. Take the murder of Kitty Genovese. The 38 witnesses all believed that someone else would help the screaming civilian, they all had a common enemy, but they all were silent. They all put their own shyness before human life. Secretary of State, Rusk, may have spoken against the Bay of Pigs plans to his state department, but when it came time to tell the people who mattered he fell through.
Groupthink is more than the group; it is every individual whom allows it to happen. The shallow psychology of human nature may state that humans are supposed to be less willing to act in groups, but how much is truly known about human behavior.
Questions:
1. A group is a collection of individuals, how truly responsible are the individuals for the acts of the group, and how much credit should be given to the subsequent “leader” of the group? How is this balance achieved?
2. In terms of a leader, is having a “leadership entourage” take the blame truly beneficial in the end? How much credit should a leader give himself?
In your last paragraph you say that groupthink is more than the group, and I completely agree with you. For me, the idea that a group is not equal to the sum of the individuals strikes the hardest; why do humans behave differently when others are present? If one of Kennedy's advisors were interviewed on an isolated situation, would that individual still come to the same decision as that of the group's? It seems like sociology and interpersonal relationship plays a very important role in leadership, and the lack there of.
ReplyDelete