Groupthink and Asian Cultures

Prabhjot Kaur Communication Theory Final Paper ASSUMPTIONS A spicy level of cohesiveness is normally fork out when conventionthink occurs, and there is a great reluctance on the part of company members to stray from the bases position. They do non want to leave, be forced out, or be ignored by different members. This aceness associated with cohesiveness is typically a desir able particularise except when the free radical relies too a lot on solidarity that the desirable ends argon not focused on. They be potential to operate in the group in a manner that seeks the acclamation and even affection of the other group members.This is not the same as wanting to please the group leader with little or no concern for the opinion of the other group members. Cohesiveness is tho one of three conditions necessary for groupthink to exist. The second assumption mentions to the process of problem solution in small groups marking it a usually unified process. When a group is given th e task of making a finding they usually go in with the thought of reaching a unanimous decision and strive to get along. They ar also susceptible to adapt to the cohesiveness of the group due to affiliative constraints.An affiliative constraint refers to members withholding their own opinions in care of being rejected by the group. (West & Turner, 243) This is vital to the outcome of groupthink be bowel movement if the members with opposing views did not fear rejection and argued their views the decision making process would be further delay and would affect the cohesiveness of the group. The threesome assumption is that groups and decision making are frequently complex. There must be other alternatives functional than just the one option the group is picking and the members of the group must be aware 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. Group members must know the who the ot her members are and be able to understand the position of the other members. Many factors such as age, size of groups, intelligence of group members, gender composition, competitive nature of group members, and leading styles that emerge in the group (West & Turner, 244), will affect on how group members be ask and choose to challenge the groups decision.Group members who are similar in one or many of these areas to one other are more conducive to groupthink. Homogeneity can foster groupthink among members and reject them to challenge the group. (West & Turner, 244) CONDITIONS THAT PROMOTE 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 geomorphologic factors and group stress. The structure of the group does affect the way the group will run away when faced with a complex problem to solve.It is important for the group to have strong group insulation or the ability to remain untouched by outside influences (West & Turner, 246). Impartial leadership also can cause people to not have access to the full information available to help them crystallise their decision. Leaders who have their own person-to-person order of business prioritize that first originally 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 accomplished then the members have no structure to fol number one 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 very elusive for the group to be able to see all sides of the issue before making their final decision. PREVENT West and Turner outline cardinal major ways when discussing how to prevent groupthink.The first recommendation is to require solicitude and control commit tee to enforce the procedures set for decision making and make them aware of their responsibility to challenge collectivism. The second recommendation is to embrace tattle blowing, so the members will report unethical or illegal practices. The third recommendation is to allow for objection because conscientious objectors who refuse to participate in the decision-making process due to violation of personal conscious need a safe environment for members to challenge the collective view without fearing rejection or other forms of negative reactions.The last recommendation is to balance consensus and majority rule. It is too much pressure to get a consensus instead it is better to work towards a majority decision. EXTENTION Geert Hofstede is a Dutch social psychologist that did a take aim on of cultures across modern nations. Geert Hofstede (2001) defines Power Distance to the extent to which the less installive members of organizations and institutions (like the family) admit and expect that power is distributed unequally. The U. S. s considered a low power outer space country, meaning within institutions and organizations here people relate to one another more as equals regardless of stiff positions. in time in high power distance countries the less exploitive accept power relations that are higher in status. Hofstedes data from his study of over 40 countries shows that India has the highest power distance score for culture. This score implies a high level of inequality of power and wealth within society. This condition is a cultural norm for the India rather than a negative effect of groupthink.This presence of a high power distance helps facilitate groupthink. Sinha (2008) explains, The seniors in a group set the pace and make decisions, which the remain of the group members are likely to accept without further questioning. This custom is carried over to personal life as well where the time-honored 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 fall in 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 research 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 negative 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.