I think it is because as a group they seem to believe unilaterally that the “end justifies the means.” Not that they are trying to convince others they are right. As far as they are concerned they are right and it doesn’t matter what others think about it.

“A group that is capable of groupthink has to be a decision-making or policy-making body.” Can’t say that I agree with this. The Islamic fundamentalists, to me, are a good example of groupthink and they have no power other than violence.

“The PoF was about 4 years in the drafting according to Elder Holland.” That’s the unanimity policy at work, which is a good balance against groupthink as I pointed out.

“Here are some groups not represented in the highest levels of leadership: women, RS, YW and Primary are women, the last time I looked.

most non-US nationalities, FP, 33%; Q12, 0%; P70, 28.6%; 1Q70, 40.4%; 2Q70, 9.1%; AA70; 65.3%, PB, 0%. Doesn’t look to be the case, really.

people under age 55, probably, but most would have families at home, but Monson and others were called before 55

people who are not financially successful, Probably

reformed apostates, How would you know?

non-whites.” if you are talking non-Caucasian, maybe, but most Hispanics with European origins are actually white.

“Have any of the 15 had a working mother or wife?” We’ve heard Elder Oaks talk about his widowed mother many times having to work and raise her family. I am sure there are others including working mothers, like school teachers, etc.

The PoF was about 4 years in the drafting according to Elder Holland.

Groupthink is the result of people’s blind spots because they are all so alike that they lack diverse viewpoints, not that the suppress those viewpoints – the viewpoints are not represented in the first place.

Jeff S.’s question is more on point: “There is certainly also a “profile” of the typical church leader. How many farmers, shop owners, tradesmans are there in the GAs compared to business owners, corporate executives, education executives, attorneys, doctors, etc?” Here are some groups not represented in the highest levels of leadership: women, most non-US nationalities, people under age 55, people who are not financially successful, reformed apostates, non-whites.

OTOH, when you read a book like David O. McKay & the Rise of Modern Mormonism, you see just how different people’s views can be among the 12 and FP, and since the practice is to require a unified consensus among all 15, very few “pronouncements” result. PoF is the most recent one I can think of. However, there are components to PoF that seem a little “groupthink”-ish. I don’t know that they are. It just makes me wonder. Have any of the 15 had a working mother or wife? Have any of them not been the primary breadwinner? Those seem like cultural prescriptions based on norms that could become outdated. Are they the result of groupthink or “God’s way”? Hard to say. Yet, the door is left open in PoF for individual circumstances varying. If we had true groupthink, perhaps “individual circumstances varying” would not have been added.

There is certainly also a “profile” of the typical church leader. How many farmers, shop owners, tradesmans are there in the GAs compared to business owners, corporate executives, education executives, attorneys, doctors, etc?

having said that, there is also unity of thought in that we are fairly consistent in our basic beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, I don’t think.

But, there is also this weird paradox, where Joseph Smith urged members to think for themselves against a system that preaches “Follow the Prophet, he knows the way.” EVen though we have the George Albert Smith letter as posted on BCC, there is still the Elaine Cannon (YW Gen Pres 1978), quote that “When the Prophet Speaks, the debate is over” which is still in the YM’s manual. Now, that may mean that the debate among the GAs is over, but what about the members? is the quote being used properly.

But I think that that is still a paradox that needs to be addressed. And lastly, GAs and leaders may tell you what the Church teaches, but they can’t tell anyone what to think.

However, across the stake there are a few, across the region quite alot across the Church there is loads. So I would argue that there might be more chance of homogeneity in the higher councils. Maybe this is why I have a hard time remembering the relief society the young women preseidencies, because they all seem very similar. I think that is controversial, we’ll see.

I think it is more likely to happen at the ward level then the stake level, and less likely in higher levels of church government, but that is just my viewpoint…no real experience to back that up other than little contact with stake presidents and general authorities that always leave me thinking: “They really get it, which is why they are called at that level.”

One of the real dangers of groupthink is that it creates an illusion of consensus where there is not, in fact, unity of thought. Dissenting viewpoints are severely criticized, and the holders of those views are marginalized, stereotyped, and maligned. Consequently, members of the group are unwilling to express dissenting opinions. The absence of outward dissent gives the impression of agreement, even though several group members may not in fact agree with the majority’s views.

Moreover, when LDS leaders teach that the Prophet will “never lead us astray,” or teach that God will bless us if we obey the Prophet even if what the Prophet says is wrong, why would Mormons critically examine the Prophet’s commands? If disagreement with, or disobedience toward, the Prophet is disallowed or at least strongly discouraged, is there any wonder there is a lack of critical analysis of what the Prophet says?

But I don’t think most Mormons would see any problem with the fact that they don’t critically examine what Church leaders tell them. Again, because the fundamental premise of the LDS Church is that its leaders are the few authorized representatives of God on Earth who can discern and reveal God’s will to mankind, they feel grateful to have someone who can reveal God’s will to them. (“We thank thee, O God, for a prophet to guide us in these latter days.”) So if you believe in the concept of prophets, and you believe the President of the LDS Church is God’s Prophet, you’re going to trust and believe and obey him, and feel grateful for his guidance, rather than challenging it.

So, yes, Mormons engage in Groupthink, but I don’t think most Mormons would see that as a problem, I personally don’t find that too surprising given what the fundamental premises of the LDS Church are.

This statement can be taken two ways. Are we of one mind, because we all believe the truth? Or are we of one mind, because we all do what we are told? I’ve served with leaders from stake presidents, bishops, and on down, who had the attitude that “unity” meant “do what I say, and don’t make waves.” That is the bad form of groupthink, and is terribly unrighteous. I doubt that HF, JC, and HG became of “one mind” because HF browbeats them into conformity.

In real life, the only way for humans to draw close to a state of being “of one mind” is discussion, some disagreement, advocating for their own beliefs, with a willingness to hear the other side. If I am not willing to hear another’s viewpoint, we will never become of “one mind.” Worse, it will be my fault as much as anyone’s. If I am a bishop, I cannot blame the members because I refuse to discuss things with them.

Leaders govern by consent of the governed, even in the Mormon church. People can agree and follow, can be browbeaten and follow, or somewhere in between. If the attitude of a leader is “do what I say, or go to Hell/Outer Darkness/Telestial Kingdom,” the church will never be of one mind and heart.

In reality, this post is two separate concepts: groupthink (which relates to thought process) and individual orientation to group norms. In looking at the scales, I think it’s quite possible that there isn’t that much variation amongst church leadership on these norms (which could contribute to groupthink), but there’s more variation amongst the membership at large (although not perhaps as much as what would be ideal).

I guess to go back to Hawkgrrrls questions…the antidote to me on avoiding the pitfalls of groupthink in the church is HUMILITY.

My view of the prophets, seers, and revelators are that they are the most humble people from what I witness (albeit from afar). If they don’t have a personal agenda, they won’t be power hungry to conform to a group consensus, so groupthink would be less an issue than in a government group or business organization where people’s livelihoods are at stake and their image is important on how to influence others. I don’t think those power struggles exist in the church leadership.

http://members.cox.net/zenochi/J%20J%20Dewey%20-%20Infallible%20Authority.pdf

http://members.cox.net/zenochi/J%20J%20Dewey%20-%20Eternal%20Lives.pdf

–Zenochi

Re: KGMcB
No, groupthink applies to any group, not just decision makers. It isn’t about the outcome, it’s about the process.

The process of groupthink is about coming to conclusions without doing the critical testing, analysis, or evaluating ideas. Unfortunately, what prevents group think is something either the group has already or not. It’s not as if a group can simply generate ideas, test them, and choose. It requires independence, individuality, a feeling of freedom of expression, etc. This is something that must be cultivated in the long run. The leaders of the church won’t get away from groupthink by simply challenging each other. It might help, but it is doubtful that 15 men from a similar demographic are capable of coming up with each cognitively diverse ideas to avoid groupthink entirely. How does this apply to a large group? Well Irving Janis said it best “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”

I highly recommend the wikipedia article found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

The opposite of groupthink is synergy. When a group decision or outcome is better than what any one of the people could come up with.

Anyway,

I don’t think the church suffers from groupthink. I think that many members suffer from lack of faith, not just faith that the lord is directing the lives of individuals, but also a lack of faith that other members can decide for themselves what is right and wrong. I don’t think the problem lies in official church doctrine, but more in the unwritten cultural “rules” that so many people cling to.

For example, Bay of Pigs was a disaster because leadership was narrow-minded and didn’t challenge their assumptions which led to a decision that led to a disaster. The soldiers carrying out the orders were not involved in groupthink, they were involved in obedience to authority.

In the church, the 1st Pres and Q12 must decide a position on Prop 8, or whatever, but for me as a member, I’m asked to obey direction from leaders or I can choose my free will to not obey. But obedience is different than groupthink, IMO.

The danger for the church is if the 1st Pres and Q12 are all men, all white, all older group, all striving for peaceful and unified decisions…then they can fall prey to groupthink. On the other hand, they are all sincere in their duty and it has been said they challenge each other until a decision is made, then there is consensus in carrying out the decision.

I think the church, as a whole, engages in groupthink to a large degree. I think it is a cultural problem, as well as a hierarchical problem. Generally speaking, I think the church places the organization first, and the individual second. When consistency in testimony (no kids, no stories, no thank-i-monies, etc.), correlation, rules, formalities, etc. become the goal, we are losing sight of the individual. Is the church’s job to promote growth, or to help individuals? For me, this all boils down to fear and control. Humans desire control, to alleviate perceived fears. Leaders are afraid of spiritual anarchy, damaging immature testimonies, etc. etc. Goin along with this post, I think we could ask the question, is the church authoritarian? That helps answer the groupthink questin IMHO.

Hawkgrrrl, I liked the post, but I think you have made some possibly invalid assumptions in your bullet points. You are sort of painting a picture that the characteristics in bold do something, and its corresponding opposite has the opposite effect. Then you ask about the spectrum in between. I’m not sure that’s valid analysis. Does anarchy always create instability? In both the long run and short run? I know anarchists who have some pretty convincing logic. Does having no programs, and free open meetings create insecurity? In what way, and by whose definition? What logic backs this up? Have we tried it? Would nothing get done, or would the group figure it out on its own?

I guess my point is, I think we are taking for granted that the opposites of your bulleted points have the opposite effect. I’m not sure I buy into that. If one looks at the logc, and reasoning of various political camps, the libertarian ideal has the fewest leaps of logic, and rests on very unchallenged principles (I know I’m preaching to the choir a bit here hawk). It is the minimalist ideal. Contrast this with either communism, or authoritarian regimes in which many illogical leaps have to be made to maintain control over a perceived threat and provide the coveted security and safety.

I think a more interesting question is why do we fell the need to have conformity, structure, rules, tradition, formality? What do we feel that reall affords us, and does it accomplish its goal? Or would that goal be achieved in the long run while allowing more freedom?

“groupthink” = a consensus or belief system I don’t like
“consensus” “philosophy” “outlook” “belief system” = a groupthink I like

“conformity” “uniformity” = convergent or overlapping beliefs I don’t like
“unity” “order” = convergent or overlapping beliefs I like

“stifling independent thought” = guidance and received wisdom I don’t like
“acceptance on difference” “discovering truth” = guidance and received wisdom I like

IMO, of course.