My personal reflection on groupthink
image from the wix
When I was introduced to ‘Groupthink’ recently, I felt strongly about the unfortunately ubiquitous of this practice in our higher education sector. I am a living example of this social phenomenon. How often do we pretend to laugh at a joke from the boss when we do not find it funny? How often do we keep our opinions to ourselves at meetings because we do not want to present to be confrontational, different or perceived wrong?
This reminded me of a staff development workshop that I delivered on ‘educational practice in the UK higher education’, where I made reference to Asch’s Conformity theory which we as educators should be aware of in the classroom. The invisible conformity and peer pressure often lead to groupthink to avoid having ‘different’ or ‘wrong’ voices or opinions. This is not limited to students; this is embodied in our society. Groupthink arises out of a natural pressure for conformity. Critical or constructive views might be self-censored for fear of upsetting the status quo or the majority in the room.
Groupthink is a term coined by Yale University Social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972. He posits that groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. Groupthink often happens when there is a strong sense of shared identity with a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people.
This is most likely to happen when the group of individuals or the majority of the group come from shared social, cultural and economic backgrounds. Under this situation, the strong group voice reaches consensus by silencing the ‘other voice’ unintentionally through an illusion of invulnerability or unquestioning their ethical or moral values.
In addition, groupthink could also occur when there is a strong authoritative or charismatic leader in the group. Here conforming to power creates an imaged safe space and protection for future failure. Being an international staff from Asia working in the UK, I always felt a strong sense of conforming to the dominating group of local colleagues. I did not want to be different, though I come from a different cultural, religious, linguistic and political background.
Since last year, I started to reflect on the nexus and correlation between the EDI practice and groupthink in theory and practice. So often we promote a beautiful and idealistic concept with limited practical solutions to it; however, we could argue that the avoidance of groupthink certainly could be a step toward the promotion of EDI. The practice of EDI in the workforce, paralleling with the avoidance of groupthink, could lead to creative and disruptive solutions to problems, as well as enhanced productivity, engagement and reputation of an organisation.
Here we need to return to the UK higher education sector. Being widely critiqued and acknowledged, the recent turmoil of the sector is deeply rooted in and entangled with public funding or lack of funding for years, increased living costs and inflation, and perceived right-wring attitudes against international students as a result of the changed and evolving visa policies. However, so far, we have only seen limited voices on the reflection of the changing practice and nature of a university degree, nationally and internationally.
Where are we as a sector? Globally, we have seen graduates with the right skills, knowledge and competencies who cannot find jobs. Of course, we should not equate a university qualification to job readiness. But why shouldn't we when British students often end the universities with a massive loan burden on their shoulders? If that is the case, why would one choose a university degree over an apprenticeship course?
Most importantly, I wonder whether we as a sector are so used to groupthink, that we do not want constructive views on our practice. We accept the norm that a Vice Chancellor should earn over £200K a year. We approach international education with neoliberalism practice as well as polarised by the political agenda of the governing party.
I felt genuinely sad but equally glad to see the headline last weekend on Fifteen of UK's top universities accused of offering 'back door' routes to foreign students with shockingly low A-Level results 'because they pay higher fees'. Though many critique the narrowness of the perspective, I thought it did a rather thorough job of focusing on the entry criteria of the international foundation at Russel Group universities where there is public-private collaboration. After all, it is only a newspaper article, not an 80,000-word Ph.D. thesis to study the complex and multifaced UK international higher education. I am equally surprised that the majority felt the necessity to defend this and dispute this article without accepting the potential underlying worrying truth that this article depicted. Several recent researches and narratives show that it is easier for Chinese students to get admitted into top UK universities in comparison to good universities in China. We all know that. Here, I also have to note that ‘foreign student’ is a term that the sector has not used for years, as it suggests ‘outsiders’.
When things go wrong, blaming others is the easy option, the economy, the politics and the fund. These are all valid and strong rationales. As a sector, facing challenging times, UK universities successfully adopted online and hybrid teaching and learning swiftly during COVID-19 and from there accelerated the digital education delivery.
But can we do better as a sector? We could hide behind groupthink to ignore the potential consequences of the group’s actions. But we can also reflect on our endeavour and attitude towards disruptive and constructive views and solutions to problems. Groupthink and sometimes power pressures also silence the exposure of mismanagement, abuse of power by executives, or nepotism at universities. Sometimes the HR who should protect the benefits of the staff only protects the power of the leadership under the pretence of the interest of the university.
The bankruptcy of Birmingham and Nottingham last year seemed to be an accepted norm where no individual or group was accountable. The financial pressure perhaps has not pushed some UK universities to the point of bankruptcy, but consolidation might need to be considered for some providers based on the report by PwC commissioned by UUK. The resignation of the Vice Chancellor from the University of East Angelia last year became the headline to blame in public for the financial deficit while he had a whole executive team behind him for the running of the university.
As a sector, perhaps it is also time for us to embrace constructive views and act disruptively.
コメント