GroupThink’s Growing Presence in Social Media
Written By: @TylerOrchard
The term “groupthink” was coined by the renowned psychologist Irving Janis in 1972. Symptoms of this increasingly pronounced phenomenon are associated with poor and pressured decision making processes. This ground breaking qualitative study revealed that those who will be more susceptible to groupthink is directly correlated to the confidence those individuals embody in the decisions they make within the group.
Before delving into my post, I think it is appropriate to highlight several resources that are great reads on this topic. Mike Lesczinski’s article The Only Defence Against Boardroom Groupthink is a great take on today’s “yes men or women”. There is also a great study conducted by Henningsen, Eden, Henningsen and Cruz on the symptoms of groupthink. Finally, Peter Turkington, a great PR mind, touched on this topic in his blog.
The decisions that we make as professionals are grounded in our deliberated judgment, moral foundations and mental efficiency. However, groupthink has the ability to impair those faculties due to pressures that are insulated from other areas of life or industry.
Many of us would agree that in our professional positions there are not rigid rules or guidelines for decision making, nor should there be. But groupthink seems to have been reinvigorated by the popularization of social media.
From the ability to “retweet”, “like”, “quote” and “repost” content, many have lost the desire to question information, ideas and lists of the top 10 keys to (insert here). I had begun to see social media in a different light until just this past week when Judy Gombita, who is a great contributor to the PR field, decided to engage me in a great debate via Twitter on the difference between human-determined morality and business ethics within the PR industry. This was spurred by my post Our Battle With Ethics in PR. She revived my faith in the type of dialogue that is quickly vanishing in our 2.0 world.
I have seen all to often people in industry and in society relinquish their desire to form independent thoughts in favour of jumping on the proverbial bandwagon. It isn’t anything new. It is ever present at our offices, in our social lives, at school – just about anywhere. But social media publicized and highlighted our impulse to agree with whatever is being said without pause for contemplation.
Is it that we fear to be questioned? Do we want to gain more followers? Do we want to be part of the latest idea or fad? Or is it just that we don’t want to be the one to lend a critical analyzing lens to a story or article?
Throughout my childhood, academia and now during my professional career, I have always sought to critically examine the world around me. Whether it is a communications strategy, a pitch, a new idea or research, I believe it is healthy to engage in dialogue and discussion on any topic. I would be remiss if I didn’t state outright that I don’t mean we should be going through everything with a fine tooth comb searching for an issue to expose. I am merely suggesting that we need to revitalize the discourse on social media platforms.
Groupthink has laid down deep roots in social media. I believe there is a stigma that revolves around debate on Twitter or Facebook. We are too eager to further the conversation in terms of analytics and popularity, than we are in furthering the knowledge economy of the topic at hand.
I am not perfect, I have found at times that I am searching to break free of the incredible hold groupthink has on the decisions you make. Today’s professional environment is one where groupthink thrives. Your success, in some industries, is defined by how well you fall in line.
I find that many are blinded by the popularity and allure of more followers on social media. This new 2.0 phenomenon has thus shaped our online engagement and interaction processes. The dialogue has shifted from constructivism into one of impulsive and unconditional agreement.
Is there anything we can do?
I think it would be foolish to believe that we can ratify the social media environment that has become so widespread. The realist in my sees social media as more of a place to only share and re-share information and ideas, not a place to view these concepts with a critical lens. But maybe that’s just the way it’s supposed to be.
It should be noted that there are a number of online chats (Twitter specifically) that you can take part in. I find these to be extremely beneficial and is a move in the right direction. However, these are based more on the sharing of information and tips than it is based on analysis and debate.
Social media connects us with professionals from across the globe. This is an invaluable tool when searching to be better at what we do. It has offered us an opportunity to learn from and engage people without boundaries. We have the ability to discuss ideas and concepts with people we normally would never have even met.
I think we need to realize the power of social media, from a PR development point of view. It isn’t just about how many followers you have or how many re-Tweets you can garner. It is about contributing to the evolution of the industry and those around you.
I will continue to strive to engage those around me because I see it as a way to learn.
Like this:
9 Responses to “GroupThink’s Growing Presence in Social Media”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - January 13, 2012
- - February 4, 2012
Great post, Tyler. It’s probably the first I’ve seen on groupthink as it pertains to social media. Personally, I find it hard to escape the phenomena. When I find myself thinking in a contrary direction, I typically avoid adding a comment to a discussion. I need to hang out with @jgombita a bit more (and add ‘avoid groupthink’ to my list of New Year’s resolutions).
Thanks Shelly. You’re quite right, it’s a phenomena that is very difficult to escape, but so easy to fall in to. There is that stigma that revolves around debate and constructive criticism that blinds our ability to speak up. I think the environment we operate in has shaped that decision making process. Where the path of least resistance seems much more appealing than voicing a personal opinion. I’ve struggled with that many times. Yes, @jgombita will make you think and will definitely keep you on your toes!
Tyler, thank you for including our Twitter discussion—in a positive light—in this post about “groupthink,” particularly in how it relates to PR and social media (my bailiwick column-area on Windmill Networking).
My main criticisms, whether it relates to the Lowe’s recent decision to pull advertising to a “Muslim” reality TV show or other seemingly bone-headed moves from corporations is that social media presents too small a snapshot of:
- Time (in social media, discussions are almost always limited to simply the present, not what preceded the event or events and certainly not reputation and financial implication into the next quarter and beyond)
- Rationale (what were the reasons for doing something, both stated and inferred?)
- Cast of characters (who was involved in the key decisions and does PR have a role of counsel…or simply the person tasked with delivering the “narrative”—and in what format and which channels?)
Specifically regarding the Lowe’s incident, I was pleased to see that Mustafa Stefan Dill (whose practice specializes in Muslim PR) researched what I had speculated about online: Lowe’s used a third-party media-buying company, with one part of the negotiated package being the reality TV show that was later pulled.
Ergo, if I was going to speculate about anything, it would be about how closely the various components of the buy were examined at the time of presentation…and by whom? Plus what percentage of that particular buy related to the reality TV show? My guess is that it was actually a very small percentage of the overall buy, meaning that for whatever reason it was pulled, whoever made that decision obviously felt the overall impact would be small on targeted audiences.
History appears to be unfolding that the impact of pulling the ads is actually larger from a profile point of view, although the jury is out as to the long-term reputational and financial impact. Why? Because people talk a big talk about boycotts, etc., but when it comes down to things like price points, convenience of location and in-store experience, most will quietly continue to purchase at the same stores they have frequented for years. Not to mention the fact that why should your well-managed local Lowe’s store in Ontario (perhaps employing family or friends) suffer from a seemingly dumb business decision made at a head office in another country?
Some people in the PR or marketing fields or elsewhere want to be seen as “thought leaders” in social media, particularly when it comes to crisis communication management. But as I argued in my Crisis Byte column, very few people actually have experience in crisis communication, let alone the social media-created versions of it. If you’ve never been in the eye of the storm, who are you to give a “shoulda coulda woulda” list of do’s and don’ts, let alone decide whether a decision was ethical or moral?
We may never know the real reasons why Lowe’s pulled the ads or who made the decision, unless it is actually taken to the courts. And my original argument was that it likely won’t go to the courts, because a company pulling ads is not illegal, no matter what were the reasons behind it. Sometimes a media outlet or a country’s regulators force ads to be pulled, following numerous complaints, but this was not the case.
What are my main takeaways from this particular incident? Using social media to provide a rationale of why something was done in a totally different channel is not at all sensible, particularly if you are simply going to post something and let it be “discussed” by a lot of people with opinions. That was not the least bit strategic regarding the why and what.
Also, that people with prejudices appear to welcome the bigger bully pulpit that something like Facebook provides. After all, it was the individual commenters that really demonstrated hate and/or a lack of ethics…not Lowe’s itself.
Why doesn’t more of the “group” recognize these things in their thinking?
Finally, as per my colleague Heather Yaxley, people in PR need to get over themselves both in the role and in the commentary by pundits about hero or villain scenarios. Most practitioners’ roles do not revolve around these highs and lows. And most are forced into reactive roles because of the decisions and actions that were made outside of their control. (You can find her comment/exact words here: http://windmillnetworking.com/2011/11/28/crisis-byte-an-online-shark-attack-or-fishy-little-nibbles/#comment-375973085 )
Of course countering groupthink is part of the MO on PR Conversations, particularly from a global-local context. I’d welcome your participation in future debates; I think your perspective would be very much welcomed. (And if you think I’m tough, wait until you come up against Paul Seaman on an issue!
It was a nice way to send out 2011, making the online acquaintance of another Canuk PR pro. Here’s to meeting IRL at some point, too (similar to Shelley Pringle, whom I see already posted a comment).
Cheers,
Judy
Awesome conversation throughout!
I’ve been in great dialogues and discussions on Twitter (our recent one is a nice example), and find them very rewarding, so it can be done. That said, I think it’s not done as much as because Twitter , especially, is a frustrating platform to do it in — hard to make intricate subtle points or support your argument in detail in 140 characters or less. FB is geared around personal *common* interests (“like,” “share,” “friend”), not professional perspectives, so its ethos by default doesn’t foster that style of exchange. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but its not what it’s designed to do, so people, at a very subliminal level, don’t consider (or don’t feel comfortable with) that style of engagement on FB: i.e., it’s not what they go there to do. By the same token, Twitter isnt designed for that kind of exchange, either.
its not that Twitter and FB create an increase in groupthink ; it just seems that way because they’re not set up for an alternative mode of engagement, so what you see is what (you think) you get.
Plenty of good discussions and exchanges on Linked In, though, as that’s its ethos.
Its my belief that any use or consumption of media (“social” or otherwise) revolves around just one thing, in essence: People seek info to solve problems. Whether it’s internet porn or the best deal to buy a tire, you’re trying to meet a need.
The info required to meet that need is content; how you want to receive or use that info determines platform.
The kind of exchange we’re advocating for on this thread needs a platform that would be the mutant offspring of a long-form Twitter and Linked In.
As to the Lowe’s debacle, Judy, I should clarify that I only found what Lowe’s *claimed* re the ad buy. They also haven’t specified whether the bulk buy was third party or not ( most are, so it s a reasonable assumption, but one I didn’t make, nor did the articles I quoted). I don’t have independent verification of their claim.
I have these same questions as you: “… how closely the various components of the buy were examined at the time of presentation…and by whom? Plus what percentage of that particular buy related to the reality TV show?” They have yet to produce the mysterious ad guidelines, which could clarify much, so I smell spin.
“After all, it was the individual commenters that really demonstrated hate and/or a lack of ethics…not Lowe’s itself.” Perhaps, but by allowing that to go unabated, they implicitly endorsed that line of thinking, which then becomes linked to their brand.
great stuff everyone — honored to be partaking here!
Per Simon Houpt’s December 15th “Persuasion” column in the Globe and Mail:
3. Executives of Lowe’s hardware stores in the U.S. certainly heard more than their fair share of gutter talk this week after they pulled their ads from All-American Muslim, a reality show on TLC about five families in the Dearborn, Mich., area and their struggles with mainstream society. After Lowe’s said it would drop its sponsorship in response to a letter-writing campaign by the Florida Family Association, the retailer was both pilloried and hailed. Then, its problems magnified as xenophobic comments piled up on its Facebook page and it didn’t delete them. Meanwhile, other advertisers stepped forward and offered to buy whatever inventory Lowe’s dropped. Last we checked, that made the score: Capitalism, 1; Censorship, 0.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/persuasion/when-strangers-call-a-telus-store/article2272989/
Enjoyed your post Tyler – and its interesting as I’ve been writing about group psychology for a chapter on researching people in a new book I’m completing. There has been little focus on the topic from a PR perspective – not just in terms of the group influence on individuals, but also on the emergence of a collective ‘opinion’ which may differ from those held by participants in the group.
I do like your discussion about being prepared to stand up for opinions, and have a real debate via social media. As Judy says, that’s something we champion via PR Conversations – particuarly through some brilliantly challenging posts and comments. We sometimes disagree, debate why that may be, examine each other’s views and maybe find common ground or agree to disagree. That has to be more healthy than the lovefests you see on too many blogs.
Just realised though that I haven’t disagreed with anything your post said though…
Thank you for the comment Heather. First off, I would love to read that chapter once it is completed. It sounds incredibly interesting and I would enjoy gaining insight from your perspective. It’s a fascinating topic, especially when you delve into it from a Social Media point of view because you actually get to witness certain exchanges and dialogue that were once invisible to an objective researcher.
Judy has not only been a great champion of constructive and civilized debate, but she is a fluent practitioner of that ideology. It is something that is refreshing in today’s world. There is that stigma related to disagreement or discussion. I think we find that in almost any environment, but it is magnified in the Social Media space. You said it perfectly, “it must be healthier than the lovefests you see on too many blogs”. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Agreement and compliment are natural elements of any relationship or interaction, but debate is what breeds learning and progression.
I’m glad you enjoyed the post. As much as I do enjoy debate, a compliment is just a good!