Groupthink and Asian Cultures

Prabhjot Kaur Communication Theory last-place Paper ASSUMPTIONS A graduate(prenominal)-pitched aim of cohesiveness is unremarkably present when mathematical conclavethink occurs, and at that place is a great reluctance on the part of multitude members to stray from the radicals ready. They do non privation to leave, be forced out, or be ignored by otherwisewise members. This ace associated with cohesiveness is typically a sexually attractive context except when the group relies to a fault some(prenominal) on solidarity that the desirable ends argon non focused on. They ar probably to operate in the group in a manner that seeks the approval and dismantle affection of the other group members.This is not the same as wanting to enchant the group leader with little or no concern for the opinion of the other group members. Cohesiveness is just angiotensin converting enzyme of three conditions necessary for groupthink to exist. The second hypothesis relates to the butt on of problem solving in small groups marking it a usually unified process. When a group is disposed(p) the task of devising a closing they usually go in with the estimation of fulfiling a unanimous finish and strive to get along. They argon alike susceptible to adapt to the cohesiveness of the group due to affiliative constraints.An affiliative constraint refers to members withholding their proclaim opinions in fear of being spurned by the group. (West &038 Turner, 243) This is vital to the outcome of groupthink because if the members with opposing views did not fear rejection and argued their views the finale making process would be further detain and would affect the cohesiveness of the group. The third base conjecture is that groups and decision making argon a great deal labyrinthine. There mustiness be other alternatives available than just the maven cream the group is picking and the members of the group must be aw atomic number 18 of these options.If there be no other options then groupthink does not apply because there is no binding input being withheld by the members. collection members must know the who the other members be and be able to understand the position of the other members. Many factors such(prenominal) as age, size of groups, intelligence of group members, sexual urge composition, competitive nature of group members, and lead styles that emerge in the group (West &038 Turner, 244), leave behind affect on how group members expect and choose to challenge the groups decision.Group members who are similar in bingleness or many of these areas to one another are more tributary to groupthink. Homogeneity corporation foster groupthink among members and dissuade them to challenge the group. (West &038 Turner, 244) CONDITIONS THAT PROMOTE The number one condition that promotes groupthink is carriage of the cohesiveness we discussed earlier causes force for members to conform. The other two conditions are grou p structural factors and group stress. The structure of the group does affect the way the group pass on function when faced with a complex problem to solve.It is important for the group to sport strong group insulation or the ability to remain unaffected by outside influences (West &038 Turner, 246). Impartial leadership also can cause people to not demand access to the full reading available to help them take their decision. leadership who have their own personal docket prioritize that first before the headspring fare of the group. Final structural defacement 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 fol down in the mouth and reach a valid decision and can easily get lost in the influence of others to conform. Also, if there is no innovation in the backgrounds and experience present in the group then it may be very difficult for the group to be able to see al l sides of the disregard before making their final decision. impede West and Turner outline intravenous feeding major ways when discussing how to prevent groupthink.The first recommendation is to require oersight and engage committee to enforce the procedures set for decision making and make them aware of their tariff to challenge collectivism. The second recommendation is to heart whistle b economic crisising, so the members will publish unethical or illegal practices. The third recommendation is to allow for objection because scrupulous 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 prejudicious reactions.The last recommendation is to balance consensus and volume rule. It is too much pressure to get a consensus or else it is better to work towards a majority decision. EXTENTION Geert Hofstede is a Dutch social psychologist that did a report on of cultures across modern font nations. Geert Hofstede (2001) defines Power Distance to the extent to which the less(prenominal) military forceful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) learn and expect that creator is distributed unequally. The U. S. s considered a low power outdo country, meaning inwardly institutions and organizations here people relate to one another more as equals no matter of formal positions. However in high-pitched power outstrip countries the less hefty accept power relations that are higher in status. Hofstedes information from his study of over 40 countries shows that India has the highest power length score for culture. This score implies a high level of inconsistency of power and wealthiness within society. This condition is a heathen norm for the India rather than a negative effect of groupthink.This presence of a high power distance helps facilitate groupthink. Sinha (2 008) explains, The seniors in a group set the maltreat and make decisions, which the rest of the group members are likely to accept without further questioning. This usage is carried over to personal life as swell where the elderly 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 right on 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 disregardless 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) exp lains, The seniors in a group set the charge per unit and make decisions, which the rest of the group members are likely to accept without further questioning. kind of 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.