Groupthink and Asian Cultures

Prabhjot Kaur Communication system lowest Paper ASSUMPTIONS A soaring aim of tackiness is ordinarily present when crowdthink occurs, and there is a great reluctance on the part of pigeonholing members to stray from the multitudes position. They do non want to leave, be forced out, or be ignored by some other(a) members. This geniusness associated with cohesiveness is typically a lovable condition everyplaceleap when the sort relies as well much on solidarity that the desirable ends atomic number 18 not focused on. They are plausibly to operate in the group in a manner that check overks the approval and even scratchion of the other group members.This is not the same as absentminded to please the group leader with little or no concern for the opinion of the other group members. Cohesiveness is just one of three conditions needed for groupthink to exist. The second assumption relates to the process of problem work in small groups marking it a usually unified pr ocess. When a group is given the toil of instal a decision they usually go in with the thought of reaching a upstanding decision and strive to buzz off along. They are in any case susceptible to adapt to the cohesiveness of the group due to affiliative constraints.An affiliative constraint refers to members withholding their own opinions in disquietude of being rejected by the group. (West & Turner, 243) This is vital to the endpoint of groupthink be bring on if the members with opposing views did not fear rejection and argued their views the decision making process would be further delayed and would rival the cohesiveness of the group. The third assumption is that groups and decision making are frequently complex. There must be other alternatives available than just the one pickax the group is picking and the members of the group must be certified of these options.If there are no other options then groupthink does not apply because there is no valid input being withheld by the members. assembly members must know the who the other members are and be able to understand the position of the other members. more factors such as age, size of groups, intelligence of group members, gender composition, competitive nature of group members, and leadership styles that emerge in the group (West & Turner, 244), will feign on how group members be surrender and choose to dispute the groups decision.Group members who are akin(predicate) in one or many of these areas to one another(prenominal) are more conducive to groupthink. homogeneity can foster groupthink among members and discourage them to quarrel the group. (West & Turner, 244) CONDITIONS THAT hike up The first condition that promotes groupthink is presence of the cohesiveness we discussed primarily causes pressure for members to conform. The other two conditions are group structural factors and group stress. The structure of the group does affect the way the group will function when approach with a complex problem to solve.It is important for the group to have strong group insulation or the ability to remain unaffected by distant influences (West & Turner, 246). Impartial leadership also can cause mountain to not have access to the intact information available to help them see their decision. leaders who have their own personal agenda place that first before the well fare of the group. Final structural flaw that could lead to groupthink is the lack of decision-making procedures.If the procedures are not clearly established then the members have no structure to follow and reach a valid decision and can easily get lost in the influence of others to conform. Also, if there is no diversity in the backgrounds and experience present in the group then it may be rattling difficult for the group to be able to see all sides of the issue before making their last decision. PREVENT West and Turner outline quartette major ways when discussing how to prevent groupthink.The first r ecommendation is to require oversight and control committee to hold the procedures set for decision making and make them aware of their responsibility to challenge collectivism. The second recommendation is to drag whistle blowing, so the members will report unethical or illegal practices. The third recommendation is to relinquish for objection because conscientious objectors who refuse to participate in the decision-making process due to violation of personal aware need a safe environment for members to challenge the collective view without fearing rejection or other forms of proscribe reactions.The last recommendation is to balance consensus and majority rule. It is too much pressure to get a consensus sort of it is better to work towards a majority decision. EXTENTION Geert Hofstede is a Dutch affable psychologist that did a study on of cultures across modern nations. Geert Hofstede (2001) defines Power Distance to the tip to which the little(prenominal) agentful member s of organizations and institutions (like the family) rent and expect that business leader is distributed unequally. The U. S. s considered a low baron distance country, meaning in spite of appearance institutions and organizations here people relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. However in gamy power distance countries the less powerful withdraw power relations that are soaringer in status. Hofstedes data from his study of over 40 countries shows that India has the toweringest power distance score for culture. This score implies a high level of inequality of power and wealth inside society. This condition is a cultural norm for the India quite an than a blackball effect of groupthink.This presence of a high power distance helps facilitate groupthink. Sinha (2008) explains, The seniors in a group set the whole step and make decisions, which the rest of the group members are probably to accept without further questioning. This custom is ca rried over to personal tone as well where the antique of the family will make decisions that the rest will follow. Geert Hofstede (2001), a Dutch social psychologist, defines power distance as the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. A low power distance country such as the United States is where individuals relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions however, in high power distance countries like India, the less powerful accept power relations that are of higher status. Hofstedess cultural data explore of 40 countries shows that India has the highest power distance score, which implies a high level of inequality of power and wealth within society.Sinha (2008) explains, The seniors in a group set the pace and make decisions, which the rest of the group members are likely to accept without further questioning. Rather than groupthink having a negat ive effect on group decision making, this is a cultural norm in India. This custom is carried over to personal life as well where the elderly of the family will make decisions for everyone. This presence of a high power distance facilitates groupthink in various aspects of Indian society.