Groupthink Affecting the NFL

Around March of last year the public became aware of the unethical behaviors of the New Orleans Saints football players. Apparently Greg Williams, the team’s assistant coach, was rewarding the players to purposely injure their opponents. Players were receiving anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 extra for each man they could take down. Coy Wire, former NFL linebacker, had the opportunity to work alongside with Greg Williams. He admits that he participated in these antics, and nowadays regrets his behavior; understanding the serious side effects of head trauma he was inflicting to those he hurt.

So why did Coy Wire and several other NFL stars, such as Jonathan Vilma, participate in purposely inflicting pain to opposing NFL players? According to Wire, the teams were falling susceptible to groupthink. Wire explains the idea of groupthink as, “a group of individuals who come together and do bad, irrational things that when as individuals they would see and assess that same situation as being wrong.” Thus he claims the players could not see the bad in the situation because they were too focused on winning. The players were accepting that their behaviors were ok because they were going along with how their teammates were behaving.   

After hearing Wire’s perspective on the situation one cannot help to wonder, is groupthink really to blame here, or was the money giving the football players incentive to behave barbarically? In my opinion, groupthink affected the way the players were thinking. It seems that the players were behaving unethically only because the rest of the team though it was ok to do so. These men sign large contracts for thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Thus, the thought that they were acting out on account of the money is unthinkable. Could the extra $1,000 to $1,500 really be significant enough to cause this type of behavior? I am interested in hearing anyone’s take to the situation.

Building a Better America

Students are graduating college and entering a rough society. Jobs are low, the market is constantly crashing, and meanwhile the only thing racking up is everyone’s debt. What is the cause of this tragedy? It is the need to conform to one central idea, a phenomena known as groupthink. We are entering an era of groupthink, when disagreeing is considered foolish or iniquitous. It is encouraged to our upcoming generation to regain the freedom to think for ourselves. 

               Disagreeing with someone does not make them your enemy. When in the heat of discussion one must remember that there is never one central idea. There are always multiple solutions to a problem. Valuing other opinions will create innovation. It will also make people feel accepted. We contest many petty arguments that are not worth the fight. We see this often in politics. Politicians argue over something small and fail to see the big picture. However it is in those small fights that innovation is created. If we give each other the chance to speak we will appreciate each other’s opinion. It other words, argue only the big cases that are worth fighting for.

               I agree that we living in a society that is easily swayed by on opinion. Groups are constantly seeking conformity. It has become common to see large groups going along with one central idea because it is easier than contesting their own beliefs. Consider a society where everyone thought the same way and everyone’s behaviors mirrored one another. This society will not grow and therefore could never change. This is where America stands. If we want to see our country improve we need to allow people to form their own thoughts. This cannot happen if we continue to make our peers feel stupid for thinking differently than we do.
Do you think that solving groupthink will fix the problems of American society? If not, then what do you suppose is the problem that graduates are facing when they enter society?

Social Loafing

A study was conducted by Max Ringlemann studying the phenomena of social loafing. He asked several participants to pull on rope. The study proved that people pulled less when they pulled among others rather than when they pulled alone.

 Motivation picks up people and gives them the determination to carry on. However, can it solve the issue of social loafing? Depending on the circumstances, yes it can. Social loafing is the tendency of certain members to get by with less effort than what they would have put when working alone. According to this blogger it take the “Three C’s of Motivation” to avoid social loafing. The Three C’s are collaboration, content and choice. Collaboration gets everyone involved in the group. Content explains the meaning of the work. Choice allows people to decide their role in the group. Although it does take the Three C’s of Motivation to keep the group glued together it does not always solve social loafing. Social loafing has also been proven to be the cause of group members rather than the free rider. Members sometimes view certain colleagues incapable of the workload. So they don’t assign these people meaningful tasks and therefore they tend to fall back and loaf. Having a meaningful task and respectfully listening to everyone’s opinion can avoid social loafing. In other situations it also takes reward systems to avoid social loafing.

The blogger also mentions that men tend to be social loafers. I do not see the logic behind this that makes this statement true. Both men and women are susceptible to social loafing. By experience, I have worked in groups of women only and the group still exhibited signs of social loafing. The blogger claims that men have less concern for their groups. However she does not provide examples or a valid reason to explain this thought. The concern for the group is not a factor that contributes to social loafing. Social loafing is usually the cause of people relying on others of the group. Therefore they try less because there are more people to contribute to the workload and people feel less pressure to provide all their efforts.  
What motivates you to participate with groups? Do you think that men really are more susceptible to social loafing? Have you ever been the social loafer of your group, or did you experience working with a social loafer?

Anonymity on the Internet

      

         Does anonymity in online social groups cause a greater negative effect? According to Randi Zuckerburg, sister of Mark Zuckerburg founder and CEO of Facebook, anonymity on the internet hasto go away. Anonymity is the quality or state of being anonymous. In group settings this can cause both a positive and negative effect. Positively, it allows those who are behaving anonymously to remain hidden; often a good thing for those who are shy. Negatively, it does not allow for others to notice someone who is behaving anonymously which it turn does not voice that person’s opinion. The internet has given people the ability to voice what they have to say without having to speak around a large crowd. However these people have the choice to show their individuality or remain hidden without identity. Randi claims anonymity on the internet is more prone to cyber bullying and harassment due to the freedom of being able to say whatever you want without having to put your name on it. Although you cannot place an identity to the thought, sometimes this can be positive. It allows people to voice their thoughts freely. Cyber bullying and harassment continue to occur even when people show their identities.

The writer of this blog proposes a different theory which explains why Randi Zuckerburg may be against anonymity on the internet. He claims that business innovators such as Zuckerburg cannot make money off personal thoughts if there is not an identity to go with it. Therefore she is not fighting for anti-cyber bullying or anti-harassment. She is simply trying to make more money.

I am not sure whether you can make money off personal thoughts on the internet. However this blogger has a point. Facebook, a site that puts a face to the thought, still exhibits cyber bullying and harassment every day. People are constantly harassing each other on the Facebook, and it is hard to ignore. I believe that anonymity on the internet is of one’s choice. It depends on how you want to view the situation to determine whether it produces a negative or positive outcome.
What's your perspective on the situation? Is anonymity on the internet positive or negative? Could anonymity be the answer to stopping cyber bullying and harassment?

Can establishing roles solve groupthink?

Teamwork is inevitable in all lines of work. When working in a team people often lose sight of where they belong in the group, which can cause problems and ultimately make working with a team uncomfortable. One of the most common issues teams’ encounter is groupthink. Groupthink is the pressure to conform to an idea when the team is seeking consensus. Usually, pressure occurs when team members are pushed to meet a deadline. To avoid problems such as groupthink the team must establish roles so that everyone can play their part in the team. It is important that everyone in the team understands their purpose, function and responsibility in order to work efficiently.
Roles

1.      Direct. Direct team members are most commonly known as managers or group directors. These are people who generally will create the structure of the group and ensure that members stay on task; giving people the push they may need.

2.      Spirited. Spirited team members are most commonly known as the innovators and coordinators. These people often inspire others to be positive and always create solutions to arising problems.

3.      Considerate. Considerate team members are most commonly known as counselors or human resources generalists. They usually keep the team together and listen to everyone’s perspective in the group. These people also tend to put aside their need for the needs of the group.

4.      Systematic. Systematic team members are usually the achievers. They are those who get the work done. While they are opposite to the spirited team members, they tend to be more aligned with accuracy, precision and objectivity.

Identifying your role in the group can make a difference in avoiding groupthink. However sometimes knowing where you fit is not enough. Groupthink may still occur. Members may still be pushed into consensus and disregard alternative perspectives. Along with identifying your role it is important to be open minded. If I were to fall into a specific role I think I would fall into the direct role. I have the tendency to be organized and help direct the group to accomplish the objectives. However sometimes this means I am impatient and cause other to feel pressured to meet the deadline. Which role do you think you most fit in with?