COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND GROUP THINK: THE TWO RISKS THAT MOST ORGANISATIONS DON’T MITIGATE

In the 21st century and for sure beyond, what will make or break organisations especially those in business is the aspect of decision making. The qualities of decisions that are made at the top have serious consequences for the continued survival of the organisation. However, it is rather a surprising phenomenon and so in many ways than one that most institutions have not put in place measures to mitigate the risk of making wrong decisions. Among the risks to good decision making are what is termed Cognitive dissonance and group think (the author calls them the “I concur risks”).

Cognitive dissonance and group think may in certain circumstances both involve changing one’s view to agree with the other person(s) or agreeing with the other person for the sake of peace despite the reservations. 

This is however potentially very dangerous in a work situation especially organisations with a great respect for position power and hierarchy. If a junior staff approaches a senior manager with the view that a potentially dangerous situation exists, and if the senior manager tells the junior member that in their opinion no such danger exists, there is a possibility that depending on the type of organisation (position power emphasis or not) the junior staff would agree or maybe still not agree but choose to leave it at that and keep quite. However, if the junior employee were correct and a dangerous situation did exist, then the problem might only be recognised after the untoward event occurred. 

In the UK during an inquiry into the death of a patient due to the wrong drug being administered, a junior doctor stated that though he administered the drug (at the instruction of a senior doctor), he had reservations about it. Asked as to why he proceeded to administer the drug despite his reservations, the junior doctor responded, “First of all, I was not in a position to challenge (the senior doctor) on the basis of my limited experience of this type of treatment. Second, I am a junior doctor and did what I was told to do by the senior doctor (despite not agreeing with him). He is my Boss and I did not intend to challenge him”. 

Clearly, in the circumstances it would appear that this death would have been prevented had the junior doctor expressed his reservations about administering the drug which he believed to be the wrong drug.

When it comes to group think it is not uncommon for a group member or staff member to agree with the view point that is shared by the majority (even if they don’t agree) for the sake of peace and not being perceived as being intransigent.

Phrases such as “nenze ninakamba”, “Nalisa landa” or “you see, I had told them” are not unusual in the work corridors. The questions that arise therefore are; did there exist the necessary conditions to allow the junior doctor to foster discussion on the senior doctor’s instructions? Do we have in organisations the necessary conditions to allow subordinates to foster discussion about the decisions their bosses make without them being cited for insubordination? Is it okay for a subordinate to ask why their supervisor feels a certain course of action is the best? Does there exist in organisations the necessary conditions for individual group members to Foster discussion about group decisions? How are such acts construed? Do you as a supervisor allow your subordinates to express themselves freely? Do you foster an environment of discussion and engagement? How do you treat subordinates with a different view on a subject of discussion? Are you the “baviziba vonse” type of boss? 

All in all, this borders on organisation culture. An organisation culture that fosters openness and presents platforms for employees to offer alternative views without being perceived rebellious or lacking discipline can help reduce what the author calls the “I concur risk”. The goal is to make good decisions and were necessary employees with divergent views must be allowed to express themselves. Of course this must be done with regard to the law, organisational procedures and policies but regardless they must be allowed to express themselves. It is a necessary ingredient not only for good decision making but also for the sustenance of the organisation.