Groupthink on the Board of Trustees?

In my previous blog I made mention of "Groupthink" and believe it is worthwhile exploring this in relation to the workplace mobbing that I experienced.  Wikipedia describes groupthink as follows:

"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup"."

The website for "Psychologists for Social Responsibility" (www.psysr.org) states:

"Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups."

Irving Janis identified eight symptoms of groupthink, several of which I feel was likely to have occurred on the Board of Trustees during the time I was the target of workplace mobbing. These are:

 1.  Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2.  Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3.  Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4.  Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5.  Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6.  Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7.  Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8.  Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

In particular, it is my belief that collective rationalisation, along with belief in their inherent morality and stereotyped views of out-groups, played a major part in the board of trustees' flawed decisionmaking.

At least one trustee told several major lies to the Board, to my seconding employer, and to me and my husband, which significantly influenced the course of events. These included lies about the nature of the allegations against me and, very significantly, that I had admitted guilt to the allegations when I had not.  It appears the Board chose to believe the lies told by that trustees with little, or no questioning.

Was it because of their belief in the inherent morality of its members, that the Board did not check the available written evidence to clarify the real truth of what had occurred?

Did they avoid looking objectively at the opposing positions in the situation because I and my husband had become the 'out group', or 'the enemy' once the mobbing was in full flow?

Did self-censorship take place, where those who had doubts about the honesty of their fellow trustees, felt unable to express these concerns to the group, thereby ensuring the ongoing illusion of unanimity of the group?

Did collective rationalisation occur, where Board Members refused to reconsider their assumptions, despite my and my husband's repeated evidence and expressions of distress and concern at the way I was being treated?

As the Board adopted a policy of silence on the matter since the beginning, it is unlikely the full truth of what happened will ever be revealed. Six of the eight board members involved during this time remain on the Board. It is almost three years since the mobbing first started and the numerous lies which were told. Over recent months, two trustees have stood down, including the trustee who had told such serious lies. He stood down shortly after a solicitor was instructed by the charity with regards to taking action against me. Whilst the charity will not admit it, I believe in all likelihood the solicitor had uncovered the written evidence of the lies that he had told. The charity board of trustees has refused to carry out an investigation, as requested by me.