Groupthink vs Collective Intelligence
Author: Ken Homer Issue: 2022-12-21
Groupthink vs Collective Intelligence
Which is Better for Your Organization?
by Ken Homer ©2018 Ken Homer. Reprinted by permission.
A few years ago, I was talking with a colleague when she asked what the focus of my work is. I mentioned that part of my focus is helping groups create the conditions for the emergence of collective intelligence (CIQ). She caught me off guard when she asked, “Isn’t collective intelligence just groupthink?” I didn’t have a good answer at the time, and I decided to work up a more robust way of articulating why CIQ is better than groupthink.
The definition I use for collective intelligence is: Connecting people and computers in ways that broaden their knowledge, enable them to cope with high levels of complexity, and help them to make better decisions together than they if they acted alone.
Wikipedia defines Groupthink as: “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.”
I thought a side-by-side comparison would be useful:
table.styled, table.styled > th, table.styled > td {border:1px solid black; border-collapse:collapse;padding:.5em;} table.styled > thead > tr: {background: #fff} table.styled > tbody > tr:nth-child(odd) {background: #eee} table.styled> tbody > tr:nth-child(even) {background: #fff}
Groupthink Collective Intelligence
Power is consolidated at the top Power is distributed throughout the network
Leaders are not to be questioned Leaders actively solicit dissenting opinions
People defer to a single leader Leadership is a shared responsibility
Dissent gets you marginalized or ostracized Dissenting views are fodder for learning
Assumptions go unexamined Assumptions are continually questioned
Only “qualified” people can contribute All stakeholders are invited to contribute
To admit to making a mistake is to fail Mistakes are valued as part of learning
Drive for conformity fosters oversimplification and devalues diverse perspectives Desire to understand complexity engages and synthesizes diverse perspectives
Complexity gets reduced to sound-bites and slogans which can lead to dehumanization Multiple intelligences are engaged to reach deep and nuanced understanding
Opinions and/or evidence contrary to official position is dismissed as being biased or fake Positions and opinions continually revised based on new information and evidence
The quick and eloquent dominate conversations Those who need time to think are given the opportunity to formulate their positions
Emotions of anger and fear dominate and are used to intimidate and manipulate Anger and fear are carefully explored to mitigate their corrosive effects
Kindness, empathy, and compassion are seen as signs of weakness Kindness, empathy, and compassion are seen as integral to the group’s success
Low tolerance for discomfort – the need to move to action overcomes prudence – often with poor results High tolerance for discomfort – people sit with ambiguity and difficult emotions until a way forward is found
How does this list strike you? What would you add or change in it?
Related:
- Ken Homer (author)
- 2022 (year)
- Topics: Collective Intelligence, Tools and Platforms