Category: Uncategorized

The concept of “groupthink” is very interesting because it makes sense that if you are in a very close, cohesive group, you won’t want to stray from the majority because you will feel isolated. However, when it comes to serious matters such as the Bay of Pigs, it would obviously make sense to try and think about the situation from all perspectives, like how the Cuban Missile Crisis was carried out. But also, it is really easy for me to say this because I am on the outside looking in and I can see why alternative opinions are needed. This goes back to the article by Janis and how those who are guilty of groupthink probably don’t even realize that they are doing it.

When looking at groupthink from a less serious matter, because Janis stated that it can happen in business and other areas as well, it seems like something that would happen less because in situations that are not as critical like protecting the United States, dissenting opinions are encouraged. Personally, I was always taught to say what I believe or to speak out when I either question something or do not agree (when appropriate of course). People even debate for fun because arguing different sides makes things exciting.

Overall, I think that it can be important to get opposing opinions in any crucial decision, no matter how big or small. I agree with Janis about how ending groupthink can be difficult when time plays a factor but I think that understanding how Kennedy carried out the Cuban Missile Crisis can be a huge help since he kept the same administration as the Bay of Pigs but allowed for a bunch of people to input their doubts and fears on the topic at hand.

4 Comments

I have always found the theory of groupthink to be very interesting, because you would like to think that in a group people would work better, however that is not the case. In a group people tend to hold back on saying what they actually think, because they don’t want to be the only member of the group with a dissenting opinion, and they tend to stop critically analyzing themselves because they blatantly believe everything being said in the group is true. What is interesting to me is the fact that when the group is presented with information that contradicts with the original set of policies that the group has agreed upon, they ignore them. Additionally, I did not realize that group think causes the members of the group to not think of the consequences of their actions, as well as what the reaction of their enemy would be.

 

I thought that the movie Thirteen Days gave a great insight into groupthink actually occurring in action. I think that the movie showed what a great deal of pressure Kennedy and his team were under to make a decision. I think it was really obvious that at times people wanted to voice their opinions that were disagreeing with the group, but they decided against it. I also found it interesting how they took everything that the CIA told them as the absolute truth, because in the end they ended up having false intelligence. I think that this is where the solutions that Janis outlined in his piece about pulling in outside information and experts who are not under the same amount of pressure that the team was under. The solutions outlined all make perfect sense to me, but I think that in a time a crisis, such as the Bay of Pigs incident, that there would not be enough time for all of the solutions to be put into place. So when do you pick and choose what solutions a group implements in a time crunch?

2 Comments

It was interesting to read about groupthink. Normally, I would think that the more people you have, the better the decision will be, because there are more opinions and expertise available. However, that does not work when there is a cohesive group, because the decision making process can easily fall into groupthink and have disastrous consequences.

One of the interesting points in the reading was the comparison of the Bay of Pigs and how it led to groupthink, because it was dominated by consensus and there was no real challenge to the intelligence of the CIA. However, Janis pointed out that the Cuban Missile Crisis was handled extremely well by the same administration. It was interesting to look for parallels between the reading and Thirteen Days to see how the situation did not fall into groupthink. The major reason that I saw was Kennedy’s resilience against the single-minded view of the chiefs to go to war. Kennedy forced many people to come up with alternative opinions that would not drive the US to war.

Overall, I think it is important not to fall into the belief that good decisions will be made simply because there is a consensus on an issue or ‘experts’ agree on it. It’s necessary for any democracy constantly challenge its ideas and policies to make sure they are the best possible decision rather than one made through groupthink.

4 Comments

While reading the article “Groupthink”, I kept thinking about how before I read this, I had always assumed the influence and impact of group consensus but never to this extent. By extent, I mean that groupthink can lead to genocide or massacre and then the group who committed the act doesn’t see the moral consequences or the ethically wrong aspects of it. And even if there are morally conscience and ethically aware members in the group, they “unintentionally suppress [their] critical thoughts due to the internalization of the group norms”, which would be believing the consensus regardless of if their policies are working or not, and the group’s exertion of pressure on any doubters or disbelievers. Another flaw of groupthink is that the group doesn’t check over their plans for possible warnings or risks, which could be blatant warnings, like in the case of Pearl Harbor mentioned in the article. The extent of groupthink’s reach is really dangerous because once a groupthink consensus is reached, it seems almost impossible to alter it or tweak it for the better, leading to only negative outcomes.

One part of the article that made me feel better about groupthink was the remedies section and how it detailed how groupthink can be avoided. I feel like these ideas would really work and stop groupthink before it even occurred, especially the concept of bringing outside experts in. I think this would work very well because once a group forms, it is unusual for new members to join, let alone be heard within the group; by having a new voice and new eyes to the situation, warnings and alternative options can be drawn up and implemented, preventing poor decisions to be made.

3 Comments

Janis describes the idea of groupthink being “the mode of thinking that persons engage in concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” (Janis 361). This was one of the main ideas brought up in George Orwell’s novel 1984 and affects many decisions in politics such as the Bay of Pigs, the Korean War stalemate, and the Vietnam War escalation. Outside of politics I believe that groupthink can be commonly found in courtrooms, especially when the jury is coming up with the verdict for the defendant. In Leadership 102, we also learned about groupthink and how humans do not like disagreeing with others and when we are in a group we tend to escalate and focus on more radical ideas.

Janis talks about this throughout the article. Groupthink involves suppressing any criticism you may have for your colleagues in order to avoid social punishment. A person may keep their thoughts to themselves by convincing themselves that it is not relevant to the topic at hand. The more cohesive the group is, the stronger the impulse is to avoid creating disunity. I thought it was very interesting that many people believe working together is actually more beneficial than individually because you can have many great ideas come together. However, Janis points out that group thinking contradicts this. When relating this back to the jury example, it makes me wonder if this is the best way to go about making court decisions. Juries are used in order to make sure that the decision is not made based off of a prejudiced judge. Yet, if groupthink affects juries and causes them to reach a more extreme verdict is this the most beneficial way to solve a trial?

3 Comments

Janis’s theory about group thinking is extremely interesting. My main takeaway from the given excerpt of his book is that group thinking is a reference

“…to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action”.

When applying the theory to normal day to day situations it becomes clear that this is something that happens often and most commonly through subliminal peer pressure. Though it may not be explicit, peer pressure, as suggested by Janis, occurs when a group is attempting to concur on a topic/decision, so if  members of the group are steadfast on a decision, whether because they agree with it or because they too are a victim to the pressure, it discourages any alternative suggestions. 

This becomes problematic when considering the consequence of being reluctant to change/alternative actions. Janis addresses one of the most prominent and harmful results of group thinking when he mentions war strategies. Often times military leaders will resort to mass killing, mostly civilians, in order to convince foreign governments to cooperate. Though there are other options there’s a tendency to kill because that has been the unspoken and reigning consensus, so much so that people hesitate to even offer different methods.

Group thinking, in the absence of all the context provided by Janis, seems effective in that it produces quick decisions, however, a deeper analysis of the term makes it clear that while effective, it is also both detrimental to progression and unethical.

 

1 Comment

Group think is an interesting concept that I’m not sure I agree with. Maybe that is entirely because I fall into the trap every time, but I don’t believe that if the designated leader of the group has enough control of the situation, like J.F.K. seemed to have, then group think will not come to fruition as often as Janis’ article made it appear. I would almost say that group think only happens when there is not a strong enough leader to keep the situation under control, maintaining order while still giving everyone a say. In applying the idea of group-think to the movie, it appears that the military generals were the ones using the group-think methodology as they all want war. Here is where J.F.K. steps in to combat the “dastardly” ideas they were concocting to go to war.

On the flip side of this, group think is not always a bad thing. It can produce ideas that would have never been thought of by a single leader. I presume this is why leaders surround themselves with counselors and advisers to help them through difficult times. Group-think only becomes a problem when the leader does not maintain “control” of the advisers and lets them all run things at the same time.

4 Comments

I had heard of the term “groupthink” in my past psychology classes at UR and in high school, but after reading Irving Janis’s analysis of the term, it is evident to me how pertinent of a term it is with regard to different leadership methods. Janis’s definition of groupthink in regard to norms reminds me of the experiment we performed in my Leadership 102 class; we had to attempt to balance a tennis ball on a small metal ring attached to strings from one destination to another. My group was relatively comfortable with one another and a lot of group members were prior friends with one another. As Janis notes that there is evidence that “as the members of a group feel more accepted by the others, which is a measure of increased group cohesiveness, they display less overt conformity to group norms,” (Janis 362). Because we felt comfortable expressing how we felt and arguing with one another, there was relatively little conformity to group norms. For example, if one team member was suggesting to pull the strings extra tightly to the point that the tennis ball fell off, other members would feel comfortable enough speaking out against that idea rather than conforming to the suggestion as a group. 

However, the idea of groupthink is was not present in this activity, although my first thought was that it did. Groupthink conformity argues that it involves the “greater the inner compulsion on the part of each member to avoid creating disunity, which inclines him to believe in the soundness of whatever proposals are promoted by the leader or by a majority of the group’s members,” (363). A groupthink situation would occur when the followers go along with whichever suggestion the leader makes and does not criticize it. For example, if a group leader in our tennis ball activity suggested we pull the strings tighter, and no one opposed the idea despite the logic that this would result in failure, that would demonstrate groupthink. When groups show “symptoms” of invulnerability, rationale, morality, stereotypes, pressure, self-censorship, unanimity, and mindguards, groupthink is a very reasonable affliction to be worried about.

Anna Marston

2 Comments

“Appropriate” by Branden Jacobs-Jenkins advances the idea that America and its people should strive for progress, not perfection, when it comes to addressing historical and present-day racism. This play follows the story of a family of adult siblings, their romantic partners, and their children who have all come together to mourn the loss of their father (grandfather to the kids) and distribute his earnings and possessions. However, they all soon uncover the dark past of their (grand)father who may have been a racist bigot and a member of the secret society of the Ku Klux Klan. The family returns to their father’s home in southeast Arkansas, a former state of the deep South Confederacy. 

Much of the dead father’s prejudice became uncovered not only through physical findings in his house but the behavior and thinking processes of his family members who arrived. Well into the play, one of the children discover an old photo album, which was presumed to have belonged to the grandfather, that encompassed photographed lynchings of African-Americans. These were enslaved African-Americans that once worked the very plantation on which their father’s house stood on. Instances of anti-semitism also occur in the play. The wife of the eldest son, who identifies ethnically and religiously as Jewish, is repeatedly offended by racial slurs used by her sister-in-law and primarily identified by some members of the family as Jewish before anything else. For example, the sister-in-law’s son once refers to the wife of Beau, the eldest son, as “Beau’s Jew wife” rather than “Beau’s wife” or her first name. 

The outstanding message of the play asks a recurrent question of today, “Why do those with power and privilege desire to ignore or to not acknowledge certain parts of history?” It was interesting to see how the children in the play were more willing to openly discuss and explore tragic history than the adults were. Instead of talking about how their father was a hateful and oppressive person, the adult siblings decided to throw the photo album filled with pictures of lynching victims into the garbage. They chose to deny their father’s prejudice as an “easy” way out, as a way that did not make them feel uncomfortable. They felt ashamed to have ever called a hateful figure and bigot leader “dad”. It would have been best for the family, as a whole, to address the past and deal with it in the present in order to make real progress.

Leave a Comment

Many try to tell the stories of immigrants and refugees without understanding them and the situations. The director and filmmaker of the documentary “Revenir”, Kumut Imesh, provides viewers with a unique perspective on how the journey of a person seeking refuge may actually go. “Revenir” follows Imesh as a refuge-seeker, who longed to flee from civil war within his own home country of Ivory Coast. He had left his home, family, friends, job, training, and education back on the African Continent. Ultimately, he ends up in France and obtains citizenship there.

“Revenir” is such a revolutionary film because Imesh not only directs the documentary, but he stars in the documentary. In fact, he had previously journeyed his way from Ivory Coast to France. In the film, he attempts to retrace the steps he had taken on his initial route, which was known as one of the most dangerous routes to migrate on in Africa. The most prominent places that Imesh documents include cities in Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Niger. Imesh’s primary concerns when he arrived at these places were his own safety and the best ways he could make money. He held jobs that were low-paying yet required much production/labor such as selling clothes and beauty items on the streets and fixing computers. 

Typically, documentary-makers and directors observe and interview people other than themselves who have been or go through the struggles of refuge-seeking. The curiosity and desire to learn others’ stories are there for them. However, Imesh’s documentary work is a crucial film as he provides a first-hand look at what it is like to actually tap into survival mode during his journey as a refugee. We, as viewers, witness authenticity in the range of emotions displayed, the interactions that took place and even surrounding conditions that Imesh stepped into to observe. As I witnessed this more direct and personal approach to refuge, I was able to understand the weight of the obstacles that stand in front of people who flee persecution and war at home every day.    

Leave a Comment

Raymond Arsenault, the featured speaker at this Marshall Center Lecture, described the life of Arthur Ashe, which he learned so much about when he wrote his book Arthur Ashe: A Life. Ashe is a well known tennis player and probably the most famous person to come out of Richmond. Growing up in Richmond was not easy, as Ashe had to grow up under the Jim Crow laws. In high school Ashe moved to St. Louis, a more liberal city. Tennis is a predominantly and breaking into it as a black man was no easy feet. I was really shocked when Arsenault talked about a coach Ashe had, who told him that if a ball a white person hit was out, but close to the line he should hit to avoid any conflict. To me, that story really illustrated how difficult it was for him to be a black athlete breaking into a predominantly white sport. Furthermore, he was doing this with the backdrop of the civil rights movement, which is father asked him not to get involved in.

The focus of this lecture, however, was on how Ashe was a greater human being than he was an athlete. Arsenault made a point to illustrate that Ashe transcends the world of sports and was an example of civility with courage. Arsenault talked about what an intellectual Ashe was and that he was engaged with the world in every way. His best trait was what a good listener he is. He always wanted to hear what other people had to say, even if it wasn’t something he agreed with and this is the essence of civility. Ashe also seemed to give so much. He created the National Junior Tennis League and used Tennis as a method to teach inner city kids life skills. Ashe was constantly asked to give workshops to kids and he never said no even when he had so many obligations. Even better, he never asked for a penny for it. Ashe’s aim was to give as much of himself to these kids as he could. He was not looking to take credit, he was looking for anyway to help others.

Leave a Comment

Raymond Arsenault, the speaker of this event, is the author of Arthur Ashe’s book. Arthur Ashe was a tennis player born in Richmond, Virginia. He grew up to be a world-class athlete, but as Arsenault argued, Ashe was most importantly an amazing human being. Ashe grew up surrounded by the struggles of the Jim Crow era. Something that took me by surprise was when Arsenault told us that growing up as an African American playing tennis, Ashe was often told “If a white boy hits a ball just out, you call it in. It’s much better to not have a conflict.” Ashe had a mentality built around inequality, and therefore obtained an increasing guilt when he saw other black kids went through the same unfairness as him. 

When Arsenault began writing Ashe’s book, he realized that underneath Ashe’s cool exterior was a raging feel of inadequacy about standards he had set for himself. As a leader, Ashe decided not to just watch unfair events happen around him. Instead, he took action. He spent his late-career encouraging other athletes to speak out for justice. Arsenault described, “Ashe had a fire in the belly, he never felt as though he had done enough.” Individuals who knew Arthur said he was an extraordinary listener, he would never interrupt. Arsenault argues that this quality of listening displays Ashe’s essence of civility. Among all American athletes, Ashe came the closest to being a public intellect; not only smart, but passionate about what he did, his morals, and beliefs. Ashe used tennis to reach young people through his creation of the National Junior Tennis League. His goal was to develop the character of kids through tennis and education. Overall, Ashe’s actions demonstrate that he was much more than an incredibly skilled tennis player; he had strong moral beliefs and took actions to reinforce them.

Leave a Comment

In his book Leadership, Richard Couto goes into detail about transformational leadership. In particular, he claims that it could be impossible to be an effective transformational leader on a small scale. I disagree with this claim; he argues that the examples of transformational leadership (MLK, Susan B. Anthony, etc.) are too far out of reach of ordinary people. If we use Bass’s simple definition of transformational leadership, I could see how it could be applied in smaller scale settings and still be effective. Dr. Bezio described transformational leadership as a “positive feedback loop” where leaders and followers push themselves to higher motivation and morality. I don’t think it’s a stretch to see this in an office setting. In fact, I think transformational leadership is in itself effective.

 

STU Online explores how transactional leadership can lead to results. More specifically, it describes how the inherent structure of transactional leadership leads to results. I found two of the examples especially interesting. Norman Schwarzkopf was a leader in the military during the Vietnam War, and even though he was wounded twice during the conflict, he was able to use the rigid structure of the military to maintain a successful unit. Vince Lombardi was also mentioned, recounting how his Green Bay Packers would run the same plays over and over, and he still had success when his opponents knew which plays he would run.

 

5 Comments

After examining these articles, the meaning and types of leadership have been integrated more thoroughly. I am under the impression that transactional leadership is something that comes along with a confusing connotation. In the article it states that a charismatic leader is different from a transformational type of leader. In my opinion, I think that these type of leaders must show some signs of charisma. This is because if you are in a high position of leading then you are, in some way, exibiting charisma as you must have to command the group of followers and command them to do what you wish. If you are making them do what you wish them to do then you are making your followers experience charisma.

This article really made me side towards transformational leadership. This is because, in the article it stated something along the lines of transactional leaders not rewarding personal gains in personality. This is not a positive trait to attain in leadership because followers want to be rewarded with positive deeds that they commit.

3 Comments

In the piece by Richard Couto, James Burns’ definition of transforming leadership is given as “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that… may convert leaders into moral agents.” When I read the terms, “moral agents”, I instantly considered these types of leaders to be individuals who not only follow a moral compass but hold a moral compass. He, then, goes on to say that transforming leadership allows leaders and followers to inspire and elevate each other. This reminded me of the saying that teachers often use in their classrooms, “The students do not only learn from the teacher. But, the teacher learns from the students, every day.” Sure, leaders like teachers are typically in higher positions than their followers or students. Yet, transformational leadership allows leaders to specialize in decision-making and other things, in addition to learning how their specialties branch off into several areas of thinking and various perspectives. Transformational leadership also allows for the gradual transition of a follower into one whom others follow.

I find it interesting how Burns bases morality on “human development” and “a hierarchy of human needs”. Usually, morality stems from a supernatural, transcendent, or Godly point of view. Maybe Burns was attempting to define morality from a secular standpoint so anyone could grasp the concept. But, would that not conflict with those who do not identify with secularism and instead are religiously affiliated? Who is his target audience here?

Part of the article reads that transactional leadership focuses on results, in terms of the expectation of results due to a transactional leader being one who values order and structure. With order and structure comes expectations of concrete results. This contrasts with transformational leadership because it seems that transformational leaders may have their own set values and beliefs. Yet, they do not really weigh expectations onto their followers to result in a certain way.

3 Comments

After reading the articles, they cleared up the meanings of the types of leadership even more. I feel as though I have an even better understanding of transactional leadership especially because of the article by STU. However in the article is says, “Transactional leaders differ from charismatic and transformational leaders in both structure and method.” I believe transactional leaders have to have some degree of charisma as well. A transactional leader is usually in a commanding role so charisma is needed in order to get people to do what you want even if it’s negative enforcement.

I thought it was interesting how they distinguished the pros and cons of transactional leadership. One con that stuck out to me was when it said transactional leadership “Does not reward personal initiative.” If that is the case the whole method seems pointless to me. That is why I think transformational leadership is more effective, especially for long term situations.

 

8 Comments

When reading the article “What is Transactional Leadership? How Structure Leads to Results”, the opening paragraph cleared my confusion between the two by saying that transactional leadership is used by someone who likes structure and order. In contrast, transformational leadership is used by someone who wants to inspire others. The difference is that transactional leaders look to direct others and transformational leaders want to motivate others to create growth.

Later in the article, it incorporates charismatic leadership and how that differs from transactional leadership as well. Charismatic leadership puts emphasis on influencing a group to work towards something that will make the world a better place. The article says “in transactional leadership, the emphasis is on managing the performance of the individual and determining how well he or she performs in a structured environment”. Therefore, charismatic leadership differentiates from transactional leadership because transactional is individualized and charismatic is more group progress focused.

5 Comments

Richard Couto’s article offers an in-depth description of “transforming leadership” as defined by James MacGregor Burns in his 1978 book, Leadership. Couto notes that transforming leaders “engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Couto 103). The author notes that while his definition of transforming leadership was an important contribution to the field of leadership studies, but Bernard Bass reclaimed the idea to more applicable terms. Couto argues that the idea of transforming leadership may be unattainable because it can “distract us from the important task of being as effective as one can be to transform this set of conditions and causal factors in the here and now with little hope of epoch change” (107). Therefore, Bass’s reclaimed idea of “transformational leadership” as a one-way influence of leaders onto their followers, rather than the interaction of leaders and followers. Bass’s term means a form of leadership where leaders essentially transform their followers through idealized influence, inspiration, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation.

Couto explains that Burns and Bass sought to define this type of leadership in different contexts; for Burns, in social movements, and for Bass, in formal institutions such as schools and industry. This article got me thinking about examples of who Burns would define as a “transforming” leader and who Bass would define as a “transformational” leader. Burns qualifies “Lenin, Mao, Gandhi, and Luther” (106) as transforming leaders. Bass, however, focuses on leaders that may apply in “formal organizations and institutions” (106), such as “school principals, CEO’s, and military officers,” (106). A leader in a school setting, for example, may possess similar traits as leaders such as Gandhi, but it would be a stretch to argue that they can be measured on the same scale. Couto offers an explanation on the differences between transforming and transformational leaders and how scholars should make the distinction when analyzing leaders in all different contexts.

 

Anna Marston

2 Comments

After last class’s reading, I was a little confused about transactional leadership, so the reading titled “What is Transactional Leadership?” helped clear up a lot. I thought that the emphasis on order, structure, and consistency for crisis situations made complete sense, but I had a couple of points that I’m not so onboard with. In the first paragraph, it says that transactional leadership does not fit with creativity and innovation, but the examples of Vince Lombardi, Bill Gates, and Howard Schultz given at the end all contradict this. Vince Lombardi used a new strategy of drilling the plays into his team so that they didn’t make mistakes, even if their opponents knew what was coming, instead of trying to surprise his opponents; he innovated a whole new strategy of coaching. Bill Gates revolutionized the way that we use technology. Howard Schultz turned Starbucks into the empire it is by turning around their entire business model. I don’t think that transactional leadership and creativity are incompatible; instead, I think that they need one another to succeed. Even if a leader does not exhibit both traits simultaneously at every moment of every day, I still think both are necessary for the leader to have.

Another point that struck me was when the reading claimed that transactional leaders appeal to “the self-interest of individuals” because the phrase self-interest last came up when we were defining tyranny. In that context, it meant “against the greater good,” but I don’t think that is true here. If you look at the quotes by transactional leaders at the end of the reading, I think that all these leaders are doing what is best for their own business or organization, so how is this defined as acting in “self-interest”? My belief is that it is not, and the reading mis-defined transactional leadership. I view transactional leadership requires a more pragmatic view of the world, a here-and-now mentality, while transformational leadership involves high aspirations.

4 Comments

In the articles which were similar to the ones that we have read last class, Couto and STU both give their own view on the definitions of Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership. One thing that stuck out when reading STU’s article is when they said, “Simply put, transactional is a ‘telling’ leadership style and transformational is a ‘selling’ style.” This really put into perspective for me, the two ways of leadership that we are focusing on.

It was interesting to hear that transformational leadership was a “selling” kind of leadership in which the leader tries to get people to buy in to what they are saying buy being influential. When I thought about this I thought that this may lead to using toxic charisma when they have their speeches because they want to sell their ideas to their followers. With transactional leadership, they said that they have a “telling” leadership style. I think that this leadership style makes a lot more sense and that it is overall better than having the transformational leadership style.

 

7 Comments