internal crowdsourcing: lynch mob Groupthink?
If I asked you to you consider “The wisdom of crowds” would you think about a knowledgeable assembly of minds or just see a rioting mob?
That’s my worry about internal crowdsourcing. I have friends who support football. Individually, each is reasonable and nice to know. Come Saturday they assume a group personality abandoning their own.
And its not pretty. Its about group psychology. Placed in a group, people seek acceptance. They want to fit in, comply, be part of the pack. Watch a US chat show. Why’s everyone cheering, is it really great or is it just the crowd around them seems to think so?
And are you really going to stand up and say, you know what – that’s a really bad idea. Maybe we should try doing this, get rid of that, whatever. Thoughts come from individuals. So why place them in environments likely to suppress expression of thought?
Does internal Crowdsourcing foster Groupthink?
Crowdsourcing sounds like a great idea. At first. Capitalise on that vast equity of intellect around you. Lots of people, all eager to share their ideas with you. How can that possibly be a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying real, broad crowdsourcing is a bad thing. Bring it on. Get those ideas out there. There’s a diamond in that dust, somewhere.
But like any new idea, it needs to be properly studied, considered. Don’t jump on it without a proper understanding of the advantages and the potential pitfalls. It needs thinking about. Park the euphoria for a minute.
And before you gather that crowd, ready to take those big, bold decisions, consider this. Consider the concept of Groupthink.
Groupthink suggests group members seek consensus rather than express fresh ideas for fear of ridicule and resist stepping outside their comfort zone. Groupthink is the suppression of creativity, the antithesis of uniqueness, suppression of controls of logic, doubt and often common sense to simply ensure cohesion with one’s peers.
Those are just the basics. Groupthink goes a lot deeper. Every business needs to be agile. All around us things are getting faster, situations are changing quicker than ever, nothing lasts, nothing ever stands still. Make that decision. Fast. Do it. Now!
Running headlong down a path and hang the risk
Just hold on, think about this. What are the implications, have you really thought it through? Isn’t there a better way, can we do it cheaper?
To stand up in a crowd and disagree when everyone’s just voted for a course of action enthusiastically, zealously even – takes someone who’s a very brave individual indeed. That’s sure not crowd behaviour.
Groupthink is a well documented phenomenon. History has given us many examples.
Groupthink? Heresy. Crowdsourcing works. Hang that dissenter!
There’s no doubt about it, if you want to get decisions made fast, crowdsourcing does that. But let’s not forget why decisions can take time. To illustrate my point, here’s a Twitter post one CTO proudly wrote after he took his strategy decisions to an internal crowd recently. See if you can spot the flaws in his strategy.
“Big week: we’re running an internal event where we’ll try to use crowds to help us define dept. IT strategy for next 5 years in 2 days”
“Well what a week. 200 decisions, made by 100 people in 1.5 days. Shows unconference format works for real work.”
This was an internal, closed event called by a highly motivated, persuasive group leader. The event exhibits all the classic ingredients of Groupthink. Notice that those decisions were automatically assumed to be right. On what basis could he assume that?
These weren’t simple where shall we go for lunch decisions. This was his five year plan. How much money will be spent implementing it. Consider that this is a public sector CTO. So its our money and in an environment that will directly affect you, the taxpayer.
Maybe its me. But I don’t see creativity in crowds. I see consensus, committee mentality, compliance. I don’t see innovation or out-of-the-box. But I guess I’m not a crowd person. You can keep the box. Its a bit too crowded for me.
Editors Note: I amended the crowdsourcing references to “internal crowdsourcing” for clarification and to reflect my point about Groupthink better. The arguments remain.
on January 28th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Neil, think you have missed the point here and perhaps you have chosen examples that reflects a clash of characters? A very experienced team of enterprise strategists set the context for this event – therefore in effect getting buy in, in a very innovative and rapid way. The attendees at the event were professional and experienced (i.e. not a mob) in aspects of IT delivery, security, service management and government business and brought valid knowledge to the implications and do-ability of the future direction. It was not a free for all but reflected the government strategic agenda. The power of the event was that we could get views across the organisation in a way that was out of the ordinary, thereby opening up people’s minds and making it easier for those who are generally quiet to make their points. The decisions made and the discussion that went with them has allowed the strategy team to produce something quite rich, considering points that they may not have considered otherwise.
on January 28th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Hi, Strategy in action,
Thanks very much for providing this detail for the discussion. Its a valuable insight that I appreciate. And I admire your loyalty.
But I feel you may have failed to take on board some vital and highly relevant data, which is understandable as you may not understand the psychology and dynamics of Groupthink. In that, I fear it may be you who’s missed the point.
Groupthink doesn’t require a mob to exist – it needs just what you describe; attendees who are close to the IT delivery for the business. Experience doesn’t come into it.
I guess you never looked at the links that I included within the post, they would have helped you understand Irving Janis’s writing on this topic. I’ve noted them below, you may recognise your event from this:
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 judgements 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.
No mention of a mob here. I used the expression elsewhere solely to illustrate how Groupthink can overtake rationality and create consensual or “mob” thinking.
But how could I assume that your event wasn’t a well managed and rational decision making process?
Because of my apprehension at the prospect of any event such as this, reinforced by the writer’s bold assertion that “200 decisions… were made in 1.5 days”.
Do the maths and think about the answer you get. Consider that real time an event of this length gets is (a generous) six hours a day, 9 hours in total for the entire event. 40% of that time would (or should) have been in setting out the problems and listing the possible solutions. Maybe 30% for discussion.
That leaves 30% of the total 9 hours for decision making. That’s less than 3 hours. Now divide that by the number of decisions taken in that time, which was 200.
Think about this. That’s one critical strategic decision every 54 seconds. Now, I’m sorry, I don’t regard that as “quite a rich discussion”. I would consider that immoral, unprofessional and wholly unacceptable.
I would expect lengthy discussion and research over a period of days to reach even one logical set of recommendations. But perhaps when its not your money and the real stakeholders aren’t involved that may not matter to “the crowd”.
For Groupthink to not come into play, there must be safeguards in place to prevent irrational decision making.
These include separation of each topic for out of band discussion by peers and a “devil’s advocate” to open up alternative thought patterns, returning discussion to put the results to the floor and a number of other points that Janis lists. Janis’s recommendations are:
a) The leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member.
b) The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset.
c) Each member of the group should routinely discuss the groups’ deliberations with a trusted associate and report back to the group on the associates reactions.
d) One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis. The outside experts should be encouraged to challenge views of the members.
e) At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil’s advocate (to question assumptions and plans).
f) The leader should make sure that a sizeable block of time is set aside to survey warning signals from rivals; leader and group construct alternative scenarios of rivals’ intentions.
Now if you tell me that you did this, please explain how you did it in 54 seconds. Because i have a problem believing it!
Let’s add some further background to your assertion that you had “an experienced team of enterprise strategists” present.
But bear in mind that the one big advantage to anyone writing about the public sector is transparency, all this information is in the public domain, there’s nowhere to hide, making it all the more important that diligence in decision making is in place.
Your department, presumably using this team, is responsible for generating a number of high-level Audit Commission reports that describe a systemic failure to manage the projects undertaken by your department to date and found that your key projects are running many years late and are grossly overspent.
Such overspend, inability to deliver and general failure is the norm, not the exception in the majority of things your department does.
You’ve just fired your IT partners and the replacement, has yet to get its feet under the table yet it was still felt it appropriate to set the agenda for the next five years regardless.
I can post the Hansard reports by all means to substantiate this.
It’s easy to jump onto a concept, then without researching it properly, rush headlong into a situation in a bid for glory or to make a name for the instigator. That appears to be the case here.
By all means, review this and comment further, but remember, your group is coming from a position of failure so readers may take some convincing!
on January 29th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Thanks for writing this lanZen I got a lot out of it and your reply to Strategy in action. I can understand her comments and why she supports her boss.
Out here in Australia my company has hosted a couple of these “brain-storming sessions” as well as running a blog written by our CEO on our company intranet. I had some concerns about the people you call “Mindguards” but never had a label for them until now. As a junior manager many like me feel the compulsion to comply. It wasnt that we did not have any ideas in fact we knew where the pressure-points were for sure but we just felt these were the domains of people we would rather not get on the wrong side of if you get my meaning. The Mindguards.
What I had yet to learn was the idea of “GroupThink”. It was a graduate working in my department who mentioned it. She had been doing a sociology degree I think and that was a piece of her course work. That’s how I came to find your article.
But what I wanted to say was that even though we have a management blog we feel under pressure not to rock the corporate boat. We all have grumbles and know how things could be improved but do not feel we could safely express those views and still enjoy a decent career in this company. So on the surface we have a balanced and stable office but beneath a turbulent sea of discontent. Thanks for writing about this but I reckon you may not get a call to help with their strategy for quite some time!!
on January 29th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Actually, I did read the link and my support was for the strong team that supported this event, the people that gave up thier time to contribute and the comments taken out of context – not a blind following of a leader.I have defientely never been accused of this!
on January 30th, 2010 at 11:41 am
When you write these posts about the things my team, my department and I do, why don’t you actually use our names? We’re not going to sue you. Its not like you have to protect your sources, or anything
on January 30th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Neil,
Can I ask (as a matter of interest) whether you’ve ever been part of a ‘crowd sourcing’ event? I think it makes it difficult to comment if you haven’t as the experience is considerably different to the external perception. It’s interesting that you use the football crowd analogy as it adds weight to my point. The perception of those looking on at the crowd is that is has a single crowd mentality/personality and effectively speaks with one voice. But I can tell you, as someone who’s been to 1000+ football matches, when you’re in the crowd it is full of diverse opinions, personalities and people disagreeing (often quite violently!). All have the common ‘goal’ of wishing to see their team win but there are hundreds of opinions on how that should be achieved.
I have to say that I too was a sceptic, although willing to try something new, before the event.But now we have a strategy that most agree with (and you’re never going to get everyone agreeing) and all feel they have had the opportunity to contribute to, all in the space of a few days. Unheard of (certainly in the public sector)!
on January 30th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
James, thanks for reading my post. I’m pleased you’ve taken the time to listen to an alternate view, I appreciate it.
Why didn’t I name check you?
Well, for a number of reasons. Firstly I knew you were involved, but I didn’t know it was you who organised the event, I believe that someone else has taken credit for that – I quote from John A “I facilitated the two days”.
Secondly, this is a strategy blog. It deals with actions, policies and ideas. I rarely attack personalities as I believe that’s not what my readers come here for. They want opinions relating to the matters I cover. Some are worthy though of negative comment when their actions affect millions of people, like Sir Fred Goodwin.
I do name names when I see good deeds done (US CIO, Head of GE, your team at the bank you worked for nominated for an award, etc). At the moment, you’re just a manager in an overspending and seen-to-be-failing public sector department.
Believe me, I’ll shout your name from the hilltops if I ever see one scrap of evidence of you turning your department around, instead of the endless self publicity, self promotion, self indulgence and refusal to accept any contrary view as valid.
Thirdly, the post was critical of the event. I didn’t name you or your department because I don’t know who may read this post or what comments I may receive that may paint a less than rosy picture of your department.
Now on to Martin. Thanks for your post. Have I ever been to such an event?
Yes, I have, a couple of times. The first as a consultant who dared to advise a global bank’s IT section during a large strategy meeting that their client (who had retained me) wasn’t happy with the mainframe connectivity and there may be a better way of doing it. I’ll never forget the assassination I received for my presumption that I should know better.
Fortunately, my exec sponsor later set them straight.
A later event where the Microsoft account manager publicly threatened to go over my head and have me removed from the account for daring to propose an alternative to Exchange for the same bank.
So I guess you can say, I don’t like crowdsourcing. Besides, most decisions I’ve taken I’ve owned the risk for and when that happens, believe me, it focusses the mind on getting it absolutely 100% right and that there’s a proper roll-back strategy in place, not just consensus!
Football crowds. No, I’m not a fan. But can I ask you something?
If you overheard a group of fans alongside you racially abusing the opposing team’s player, would you tell them they were wrong and maybe they should re-consider?
Or if the group behind you starting singing about Bill Shankly lying dying from a heart attack or laughing about the Munich Air Disaster, would you tell them you thought it was in bad taste and unsporting?
As to qualification to make a judgement about the benefits of crowdsourcing, I wonder if you sit on the board of the club you support. No?
But I bet you have an opinion on the way they play, the guy they signed last month or if the manager should be fired or not!
Bottom line? Your event made a lot of decisions, 200 in total in minutes. That goes against everything I know about risk, due diligence, research, compliance and insults those whose money could be wasted when those decisions almost certainly will backfire on you.
I could never, ever justify that and would walk away if I was ever asked to.
on January 30th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Thanks for this Gerry.
Your experience sounds very unpleasant and my first reaction was get the hell out of there!
Normally, most companies have quite an enlightened approach to social networking – at least internally. The first rule is to accept that such comment should be received graciously, with the commenter not having to fear for recriminations.
One bank I was with had an internal chairman’s blog which was compulsive reading. He’d done it right; there were comments there of a highly critical and often angry nature. These weren’t seen as “negative” or damaging, but as giving decision makers a vital insight into the mood of the workforce. The chairman often commented back and gained a lot of respect for doing so.
I don’t know what to say, other than to say your experience is exceptional. I can only hope that things improve as managers change quite often, thankfully!
on January 30th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Neil,
In terms of your comparison of the use of ‘Crowd Sourcing’ techniques, Groupthink and linkage to a specific Government Department, my view is:
a) Yes, I think it is a good thing that people take a ‘Devils Advocate’ view, but those views should have some substance and should not be based on ‘weak assumptions’.
b) Based on what I have read, the approach (taken by James and his team) is based on best practice e.g. the ‘Crowd’ was designed to include a range of stakeholders, and specifically a ‘Delphi Technique’ was included to counter ‘Groupthink’ – I quote from James Blog:
“At this point, I’ll pause to let you know that we decided to use electronic voting systems throughout. There were a couple of reasons: firstly, there 100 people in the room, so it was too hard to count hands every time we wanted to put something to the group. But secondly, we were hoping there’d be a bit of contention and provocation, and we wanted the anonymity of electronics. Plus, it gave us the ability to get actual metrics on how positive people were about each thing that came up.”
c) Based on my own experience of IT Strategy formulation in other organisations, I would suggest what James and his team is doing, in terms of engaging Stakeholder buy-in as part of very iterative process can be considered best practice.
d) In terms of this specific Department, in which I personally have had no business contact for at least 5 years, I really commend the openness and engagement that James is bringing and personally I think this will make a fantastic difference in terms of future outcomes.
e) I am a bit disappointed that you have not entered into the debate on this specific question on James Blog thread, or have not asked more specific questions of the team involved to enquire as to any concerns you may have regarding their approach.
f) As a taxpayer, and as a strategy professional, I thought I was starting to see something very special happening here in terms of democracy and professional sharing, I just hope that I am not being too naïve and that the open discussion can continue.
Stephen
on January 30th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Hi, Stephen. Thanks for your carefully considered reply. Whoever had set this up had certainly dealt with the mechanics of voting very well. A good idea, but I’m afraid I see it only going some way to managing the pitfalls of Crowdsourcing.
As I referenced in my Groupthink links, its not the democracy of Crowdsourcing that’s in question, its not a 1984 situation. Its that consensus – whether its arrived at electronically or by hand-count does not in itself justify or validate a decision. I don’t want to labour the “mob” point but I bet if they electronically voted, the outcome would be the same!
My point is this. If one person objected and 99 agreed, that one objection may contain more logic and validity than all the others. It may not, but it might. How would anyone ever know if majority consensus was all that mattered?
With an anti-Groupthink policy, that one person would take be able to take their view to an unbiased observer who would present it to the floor. And that’s just one aspect of many that were outlined in the link.
No-one is addressing these and to a point I feel like the messenger is being shot here!
I wrote this piece on my blog because I wanted to expand on my views and not monopolise the conversation on James’s blog. My audience differs from his and when presenting an opposing view there I felt I was spending a lot of time responding to his acolytes rather than those whose views offered an alternative standpoint. Internal blogs are like that. Brownie points count, I guess.
I can’t get away from the fact that too many decisions were taken too fast. 200 in 1.5 days. Whatever the mechanism, however well implemented it was, the methodology was unprofessional, downright dangerous and indefensible.
on January 30th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Neil,
Wow you really do have a very low opinion of trying something new or different. Or, for that matter, of comments opposed to those of your own.
As an attendee of James’ ‘Bar-Camp’, I was initially very sceptical of its ability to generate meaningful output.. That feeling of an infinite number of monkeys producing an infinite number of, potentially, worthless articles.. But, as the event proceeded it became apparent that unlike a herd of sheep being lead down pre-determined paths, people were given the freedom to partake in any or all paths. And having witnessed heated debates by parties actually interested in the point of discussion, it became apparent that by focusing ideas this infinite number of monkeys had found their ‘Shakespeare filter’, generating some genuinely new ideas. Ideas that are needed to reduce costs and improve public perception. I do agree that a high degree of the 200 items produced were to be 100% expected, but if they weren’t there then the process would have been terribly floored and this highlighted by their omission.
But, to keep you happy I did notice that one person present at the event did vote NO for almost every proposal, even though they took an active part in the discussion groups generating them..! Some people are just never happy.
Please, please come along to the next CIT ‘Crowd-Sourcing’ event.
David.
on January 30th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
‘If you overheard a group of fans alongside you racially abusing the opposing team’s player, would you tell them they were wrong and maybe they should re-consider?’
Well, since you posed the question, yes I would and indeed I have done (twice). I’m also a shareholder in the club I support (albeit very minor) adressing your other point.
‘My point is this. If one person objected and 99 agreed, that one objection may contain more logic and validity than all the others. It may not, but it might. How would anyone ever know if majority consensus was all that mattered?’
Participants were given the opportunity to voice their opinion (whether supportive of a particular point) and many did voice opposing opinions to that being proposed. On a number of occasions this led to a decision that had seemed like a good idea when proposed in the smaller group session being rejected. Fortunately both the culture of the organisation and the atmosphere generated on the two days meant that many diverse opinions were heard and discussed.
I think the problem is that your views have been coloured by a couple of bad experiences. I once had a bad steak. Didn’t turn me vegitarian!
on January 30th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Neil,
Having worked in a number of government institutions around the globe, I can say that I have found them (at times) very hierarchic and sometimes tyrannical places to work in.
Often, there is a criticism of IT in terms of delivery and change, and the next new leadership team is brought in – guns firing.
The strategy is often non-inclusive and male-hormones and ego rule – just to see another failure.
So a different approach, involving a higher level of engagement, stakeholder buy-in and the development of a more open culture is a paradigm shift – one I personally have more faith in as I have seen it work.
Yes, like any investment, there needs to be lot’s of checks and balances in terms of hard-nosed Governance and Assurance, but these things are more likely to succeed if people become really engaged.
I gained the impression, that these people are in a Discovery phase and that is a creative process.
I liked Gerry’s point of view in his post above:
“But what I wanted to say was that even though we have a management blog we feel under pressure not to rock the corporate boat. We all have grumbles and know how things could be improved but do not feel we could safely express those views and still enjoy a decent career in this company. So on the surface we have a balanced and stable office but beneath a turbulent sea of discontent.”
Leadership style is very important and James is bringing something different.
on January 30th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Hi, Dave,
No, I’m not against anything new or different. I’m just selective about what I see as good and bad. I try to consider everything as best I can. I’m a strategist.
My post was about Groupthink and why Crowdsourcing has inherent, significant dangers. I referenced a CTO who’d boasted that 200 decisions were made in 1.5 days as an example of how Crowdsourcing can lead to risky, ill-considered decisions.
I would have liked to have seen some great reasons for why you and your colleagues felt it reasonable to ignore all due diligence and logic to arrive at “strategy decisions” at such breathtaking speed and why that doesn’t suggest that Groupthink was alive and well at your event.
But I can’t complain, I’m out here in the social space, I have to take what’s thrown at me as we all do. Call me negative, confused, closed minded, unqualified, whatever. I guess that might be your way of suppressing dissent. If that’s the view you guys want to portray yourselves to my audience, knock yourselves out.
Yes, I have spoken to senior industry and political people, certainly. many at a level far higher than you guys, or James for that matter. And yes, they do read my blog.
But each dialogue I’ve been lucky enough to have had with them has been open, honest and intelligent. My views were considered, some challenged, countered, even some taken on board.
My warning to your CTO was to bear that in mind as that’s how they expect their subordinates to behave when dealing with the public. Its not like a bank any more. Where dissent means disengagement or discharge.
One thing that puzzles me. James said the voting was masked and electronic, yet you say in your post you knew who the dissenters were.
Kind of makes a mockery of the confidential voting system, doesn’t it?
on January 30th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Good points, Stephen, well made.
I’ll make you this promise; if James delivers tangible improvements and those result in a reduction of bureaucracy, waste and overspend. If he can introduce timely, focussed project delivery and that leads to a more efficient department serving the public better, I’ll shout it from the rooftops.
Until he does, I’ll challenge everything I can’t see public value in. A deal?
on January 30th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
No problem Neil.
Let’s just give the bird a chance to fly before we shoot it down.
Stephen
on January 31st, 2010 at 10:04 am
Fantastic, this is like ‘Trolling’ in reverse…
“.. If that’s the view you guys want to portray yourselves ..”, Well no actually its how YOU are portraying us. Have you ever thought of writing for the Daily Mail?
on January 31st, 2010 at 11:37 am
OK. David. I get it.
What gives me the right to present a view that questions the viability of a strategy that may have rushed through decisions about public service systems without proper consideration.
Its not that you’ve ever screwed up any projects, overspent, been criticised in Audit Commission reports, had questions raised in Parliament or anything, is it?
And your internal crowdsourcing event must have gone well. Look how well you deal with dissenting views.
Pity, though. I was expecting a discussion about Groupthink. Oh, well.
on January 31st, 2010 at 2:12 pm
The psychology of all this social media and blogging stuff is quite interesting. Not sure if I am quite ready for it all yet. It is a very two-dimensional medium open to interpretation e.g. what someone might have meant rather than said. I must admit I did not know what a ‘Troll’ was until I read about it today on Wikipedia. I do think we have had some interesting discussion though. Perhaps I should just drop out of the conversation.
on January 31st, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Don’t worry. Truth is the more we learn about the Internet and Web two-dot-zero, the less we actually seem to know. The guy lost me too!
But I can’t make out how he could think I’d trolled (hijacked?) my own discussion. But I guess it’s just another insult to throw!
on January 31st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Neil,
I don’t think anyone is challenging your right to present your view, in fact you’re probably more qualified than most. But what has probably irked a few on here is that you end a well presented argument on ‘GroupThink’ by citing an example of a specific event to further your argument. Your evidence? Two tweets!
I’ve no doubt that there is a very real danger that an event that sets out to be ‘crowd sourcing’ can very easily turn into GroupThink, but I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion about an event you didn’t attend and have very little information on.
Anyway, it’s interesting to read your views, although I do believe you’re wrong concerning this particular event. Are you prepared to believe that crowd sourcing can work given the right organisational culture and a well run event (and clearly the two events you attended weren’t suitable for the organisational cultures involved), or is it just below Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy on your list of make believe?
on January 31st, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Thanks for your comment Martin. It was clear from your previous contribution you’ve applied more thought than some responding to this. That’s good to note.
My intention isn’t to be some modern day prophet or Spanish Inquisitor, seeking out non-believers and heretics and converting them to the One True Way.
It’s merely to express a personal view and present it for comment. Hopefully that view gets re-enforced, sometimes its tempered by an alternative position.
The intention is to get people to think about stuff they may not have considered. Some don’t want that and go on the offensive because they feel threatened. Maybe because they can’t actually defend the view and so try to shout the other person down. That’s what people fear with Groupthink.
No, I wasn’t at your event, but plenty of posters were and the evidence shouts that they’ve no qualms about suppressing any alternative view and will do so by discrediting whoever presents it or by crude (and ultimately fruitless) attacks.
The outcome of that is that my view gets re-enforced and that the evidence of the Tweets is ratified.
But let’s just put the Tweets in context; my overriding concern was that the 200 decisions arrived at were accepted as valid because the expectation was that they simply would be, not by a careful, diligent analysis of the options proposed.
Janis calls that “collective rationization”. It crashed the banks, led to the Space Shuttle Disaster and was responsible for a number of disasters in history.
I pride myself on my lateral views, which are far more radical now than some years ago, incidentally, but I invariably try to back them up with references and examples. A feature missing from every single negative comment presented here. That’s not debate, that’s bullying version two-dot-zero.
Finally, do I see value in crowdsourcing?
Yes, but not in the way you think. Because I feel you’ve been misled. I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for a further post to hear why I think that!
Thanks for your integrity, Martin!
on January 31st, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Well I look forward to your next post then
I do believe in the power of crowds though, if correctly harnessed. And rather than the ’self censorship’ mentioned in one of your earlier replies, I saw people who wouldn’t have normally spoken out against the prevailing view feel they could because of the safety of the crowd. Thinking back to my response to the question you asked of me re racist chanting at football matches it reinforces my point. Would I have spoken out against the chants had it been one on one? Almost certainly not. While I hold strong views on the subject it would have been pointless to air them to someone who wasn’t going to listen and probably punch me in the mouth. But in a crowd, convinced that my opinion was a correct one and would be supported by others, I felt able to say something. I think the same applies in the work place. No point in challenging the prevailing opinion one on one with your seniors if all you’re going to get is a metaphorical bloody nose. But in a crowd, where it is likely get some support, then people speak out. That’s certainly a behaviour I witnessed at our event, and it was all the better for it.
Anyway, as i said, look forward to your next post.