Networks antecedent conditions of
groupthink
symptoms indicative of groupthink
symptoms of decisions affected by groupthink High stress from external
threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s)
Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect77)
Selective bias78in process-ing information at hand (see also confirmation bias79) Direct pressure on
dis-senters to conform80
Failure to work out contin-gency plans
Self-appointed "mind-guards" protect the group from negative information
One mechanism which management consultants recommend to avoid groupthink is to place re-sponsibility and authority for a decision in the hands of a single person who can turn to others for advice. Others advise that a pre-selected individual take the role of disagreeing with any suggestion presented, thereby making other individuals more likely to present their own ideas and point out flaws in others' — and reducing the stigma associated with being the first to take negative stances (see Devil's Advocate81).
Anonymous feedback via suggestion box or online chat82has been found to be a useful remedy for groupthink — negative or dissenting views of proposals can be raised without any individual being identifiable by others as having lodged a critique. Thus the social capital83of the group is preserved, as all members have plausible deniability84that they raised a dissenting point.
Figure 36 An example of a social network diagram
Social network theory views social relationships in terms ofnodesandties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital85of individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.
The shape of the social network helps determine a network's usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak tie86s) to individuals outside the main network. More "open" networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties. In other words, a group of friends who only do things with each other already share the same knowledge and opportunities. A group of individuals with connections to other social worlds is likely to have access to a wider range of information. It is better for individual success to have connections to a variety of networks rather than many connections within a single network. Similarly, individuals can exercise influence or act as brokers within their social networks by bridging two networks that are not directly linked (called filling social holes).
The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors - whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb, etc. - that matter. Social network theory produces an alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of their network. For instance, social networks have been used to examine how companies interact with each other, characterizing the many informal connections
85 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social%20capital 86 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/weak%20tie
Networks that link executives together, as well as associations and connections between individual employees at different companies. These networks provide ways for companies to gather information, deter competition, and even collude87in setting prices or policies. Power within organizations has also been found to be tied to social networks. Powerful people in organizations often derive their power from their degree of connectedness within the organization (i.e., the degree to which an individual within a network is at the center of many relationships) rather than from job title or statuses. Social networks also play a key role in hiring, in business success for firms, and in job performance.
The so-calledrule of 15088states that the size of a genuine social network is limited to about 150 members (sometimes called the Dunbar Number89). The rule arises from cross-cultural studies in sociology90and especially anthropology91of the maximum size of a village92(in modern parlance anecovillage93). It is theorized in evolutionary psychology94that the number may be some kind of limit of average human ability to recognize95members and track emotional facts about all members of a group. However, it may be due to economics96and the need to track "free rider97s", as larger groups tend to be easier for cheats98and liars99to prosper in.
Figure 37 The "six degrees of separation"
model.
The small world phenomenon100is the hypothesis101that the chain of social acquaintances required to connect one arbitrary person to another arbitrary person anywhere in the world is generally short.
87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/collusion 88 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rule%20of%20150
89 http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html 90 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sociology
91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anthropology 92 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/village 93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ecovillage
94 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/evolutionary%20psychology 95 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/recognition
96 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economics 97 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/free%20rider 98 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cheat
99 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lying
100 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/small%20world%20phenomenon 101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hypothesis
The concept gave rise to the famous phrase six degrees of separation102after a 1967103small world experimentby psychologist Stanley Milgram104which found that two random US105citizens were connected by an average of six acquaintances. Current internet experiments continue to explore this phenomenon, including the Ohio State Electronic Small World Project106and Columbia's Small World Project107. As of 2005108, these experiments confirm that about five to seven degrees of separation are sufficient for connecting any two people through the internet.
Sociologists are interested in social networks because of their influence on and importance for the individual. Social networks are the basic tools used by individuals to meet other people, to recreate, and to find social support.109 Recent research suggests that the social networks of Americans are shrinking and more and more people have no close confidants or people with whom they can share their most intimate thoughts.110In 1985, the mean network size of individuals in the U.S. was 2.94 people. Networks declined by almost an entire confidant by 2004, to 2.08 people. Almost half, 46.3% of Americans, say they have only one or no confidants with whom they can discuss important matters. The most frequently occurring response to the question of how many confidants one has was zero in 2004. The decline in confidants has been most notable among non-kin networks, putting greater emphasis on kin and spouses as social confidants. Most social confidants are similar in demographic characteristics to the person doing the sharing.111 The implications of these findings are potentially disturbing for American society as people have smaller social support112networks, which are important for both social but also health reasons.113