Groupthink vs. Thinking Groups

Nothing puts a person more at ease than walking into a familiar group. Conflict is bound to be at a minimum. Shared terms and phrases assure little chance of misunderstanding. And membership has been pre-determined by clearly articulated beliefs, so the possibility of encountering ideological differences will be at a minimum. Examples: churches, academic circles, and political groups.

However, Puccio (2007) advises, "In order to draw the best from individual members and teams as a whole, leaders must build climates where psychological differences, such as creative process preferences, are honored" (pg. 221). The level of diversity fostered within a group is indicative of the level of complex work the group is capable of producing. Excluding difference may be a group action leading to the most comfortable outcome; however, the type of member that belongs to a comfortable group is most likely characterized as 'disciple' rather than as 'engaged member' capable of productive problem-solving.

M. Neil Brown and Stuart M. Keely have an interesting perspective on 'groupthink'. In their book Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking they state, "Especially dangerous are closely knit groups who think sloppily because independent thinking in such a setting seems disloyal and rude" (pg. 18). To resist the seduction of 'sloppy groups', or to buckle under the pressure they can bear on an individual, is important work associated with the role of leader.