the article does an excellent job calling out corporations and their client based focus, and their tendencies to search for leaders instead of cultivate them within the company. this philosophy relates to the article by Zinn the perpetuation of “leaders” within the higher class kinda relates to tyranny being perpetuated by the higher class to increase their wealth by oppressing the lower class/ drones. This can be seen today in the Business class overall with ceo’s and board members of large corporations being either a past ceo or on the board of multiple other boards, not letting the workers advance to the same level of success.
the article then proceeds to talk about the effective styles of following and encouraging ways to get followers to become the leaders within the firms. The article pointed out a particularly interesting idea that was a leaderless group could be more productive. However I think this could lead to heightened group think for the group as someone who potentially could mind guard against the group think.
The article assumes that everyone in this group has the same goals and correct motivations. I don’t think that she accounts for negative effects such as groupthink.
This is an important point you bring up. I did not think about the impact of the importance this paper puts on followers could have on groupthink. When it comes to placing the importance of the leader, the follower’s opinion is sometimes silenced, but a diverse group may be had. And when the importance is put on the followers, and if the group is not diverse, groupthink could happen.
I had not really considered that having a leaderless group might create more opportunity for groupthink, but it is an important point to bring up. I am wondering, however, if not having one central leader to impress might make people feel more confident in sharing new ideas. If everyone is on the same level a wider range of ideas might come out. I could potentially see it going either way.
I agree with your overall point of view, but I disagree with your thought in that a leaderless group will lead to groupthink. I don’t agree with this because I feel like a group without a leader would be more aware of possible groupthink and shutting down bad/extreme ideas for the sake of the entire group.
I really like the points you made but I also have to disagree with how it could make groupthink. In the instance of the bank, there was a positive outcome when people were delegated more individual responsibility. Groupthink would have to be a negative outcome. Groupthink is where they would meet up to discuss and idea or challenge which is not occurring in this instance. Now the idea to delegate more responsibility to individual people could have been group-think.
I agree with that sammy. Many times worse decisions are made with groupthink. For example, Jonestown.
I also agree with the previous comments. I disagree with you on how you connected it to groupthink because groupthink is always negative.