Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Some thoughts.
What is striking about this story to me is how easily an allegedly "traditional" hazing ritual can so suddenly go terribly wrong. That's why I feel that there should be NO hazing. At all.
Think that potentially deadly senario couldn't have happened with all of the people around? Then why didn't people -- as a group -- step in? Maybe one person would have gotten beaten up if he/she tried to intercede -- but not if the group decided enough is enough. So, why didn't they? Ever read Lord of the Flies?
I find it difficult to find any reasonable explaination for this.
|
I was thinking about this last night, and I also saw a sociologist get interviewed on FoxNews this morning, and, from the sociological perspective, there is a reasonable explanation...
This unfortunate incident can be demonstrated as a textbook example of Groupthink (Irving Janis' theory of how groups can make bizarre decisions). Other examples: Challenger, Bay of Pigs, Watergate.
If you have taken a sociology, psychology, or group/organizational communication class, you probably studied this theory. If you haven't, read about it - it happens more often than we like to think, and, the textbooks/journal articles all have suggestions on how to avoid it.
Here is some information I pulled off a website dedicated to group communication studies. Look this over carefully:
Groupthink
Groupthink is a concept that was identified by Irving Janis that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions. Learn more about groupthink and then complete the interactive exercise at the end of the discussion.
Conditions Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision.
Negative outcomes
Some negative outcomes of groupthink include:
Examining few alternatives
Not being critical of each other's ideas
Not examining early alternatives
Not seeking expert opinion
Being highly selective in gathering information
Not having contingency plans
Symptoms
Some symptoms of groupthink are:
Having an illusion of invulnerability
Rationalizing poor decisions ("Tradition, anyone?")
Believing in the group's morality ("It can't happen to us!")
Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision (Tradition again!)
Exercising direct pressure on others (The forms the juniors had to sign - keeping this event secret up until it occurs - hey, it's only the COOL kids that get invited)
Not expressing your true feelings
Maintaining an illusion of unanimity
Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information
Solutions
Some solutions include:
Using a policy-forming group which reports to the larger group
Having leaders remain impartial
Using different policy groups for different tasks
Dividing into groups and then discuss differences
Discussing within sub-groups and then report back
Using outside experts
Using a Devil's advocate to question all the group's ideas
Holding a "second-chance meeting" to offer one last opportunity to choose another course of action
That "Devil's advocate" is particularly important. Most undergrad GLO's sometimes (not always) see the chapter advisor, or headquarters, or consultants as the "devil's advocate". Questioning the groups ideas is key - it's the fresh perspective, a pair of unbiased eyes, that many times can help avoid a catastrophe.
This is something I used to recommend to the chapter I used to advise - it's painful - having to confront reality sometimes in the face of bad ideas, but it does have it's payoffs. I urge all of you to give this serious consideration.