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.

Board Bullying

David Yamada, University law professor and New Workplace Institute director in the USA, has stated that "Board bullying,” as he calls it, is one of the largely unexplored aspects of workplace bullying, there being minimal, if any, research carried out on the subject. However Yamada suspects board bullying is more prevalent in the non-profit sector than in the business sector, although acknowledges his view may be influenced by much of his career and volunteer service having been in non-profit organizations.

Yamada suggests there are different types of board bullying. He emphasises the importance of distinguishing instances of incivility and disrespect from targeted, malicious bullying, and suggests unintentional bullying type behaviour is often due to lack of training or instruction for board members, "when combined with the same imperfections in interpersonal skills that we see in the everyday workplace".

The first of the different types of board bullying he identifies is internal board interactions, where for example an individual member bullies and intimidates fellow board members, or "extreme variations of groupthink and peer pressure used by board members to bludgeon or ostracize other board members who take unpopular positions."

In a mobbing situation, I suggest this is likely to include deliberate lies being told by one or two trustees to mislead the board and manipulate the decision-making in favour of the perpetrator's desired outcome. Evidence I have suggests this was the case in my situation. (Mobbing is unethical and highly damaging organisational bullying, which involves overt or covert management participation.)

The second type of board bullying involves board to staff interactions — e.g. board members use excessive pressure and intimidation with staff members. Yamada suggests that "In cases of very dysfunctional and ethically marginal organizations, board bullies may be among those who retaliate against staff who report illegalities or ethical transgressions."

Again this can be seen in a mobbing situation, where staff find themselves with a choice of (1) conforming to expectations of  'the group' or (2) challenging those with power and influence, thereby knowing the likely consequences will be that they will no longer be treated as part of 'the group' and will be at risk of becoming the next mobbed target, i.e. defamed, rebranded, rejected and removed from their position.  Inevitably when people are dependent on their income to feed and keep a roof over their family's heads, few will challenge.

The third form of board bullying identified by Yamada is board self-dealing, which can include board members exerting pressure on fellow board members and staff to deliver inappropriate favours and benefits. In a mobbing situation, staff may be encouraged to participate and not rock the boat, by promises of incentives such as promotion and pay rises.

The final form of board bullying identified is sexual harassment.  The power imbalance between male and female in the charity sector is likely to increase the likelihood of sexual harassment, there being a higher percentage of males to females in senior managerial positions, and a significantly higher number of females to males being employed in non-managerial positions. In my own case, I was a female founder/CEO of the charity, and both the Board Chair and Treasurer were male. The person who initiated the malicious unfounded complaint was male and the person appointed to the role of CEO after my removal was male.

Recognising the difference between instances of incivility and disrespect on the one hand, and the deliberate malicious psychological terrorism referred to as mobbing, on the other, is essential if the charity sector is to address this issue, and reduce the likelihood of legal claims against the charity, damage to the charity's reputation and damage to the many individuals caught up in a mobbing situation.

It is time for the abuse of staff within the voluntary sector to be recognised and action to be taken to end such unethical practice. It is time for others to speak out, because by not doing so, you ensure others will be subjected to such cruelty. It is time for the Charity Commission to have a requirement of Charity Boards of Trustees to work to the highest ethical standards and ensure such standards are enforced.

With the current lack of accountability, unethical charity boards of trustees are free to continue campaigns of psychological terrorism against those they wish to remove without concern. - Next time, could it be you?

Reference: http://newworkplace.wordpress.com