Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!huff
From: huff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Charles Huff)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Re: GroupThink
Summary: groupthink may not be a bad thing
Message-ID: <10450@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 90 00:07:27 GMT
References: <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM> <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Jan5.220525.9114@siia.mv.com> <90006.101744UH2@PSUVM.BITNET>
Reply-To: huff@thor.stolaf.edu ()
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN
Lines: 32

Are we sure that we want to encourage systems that completely (or as
much as possible) eliminate groupthink?  Some of the characteristics
of groupthink are:
1) a cohesive group
2) a directive leader
3) gatekeepers who block out unwanted information
4) a press for consensus 

Of course, if we use phrases like "premature consensus" or "too
directive" it become obvious.  But we might _want_ a directive leader
to exercise influence and _want_ to exclude people who disagree from
our discussion.  For vindication of these suggestions, see T. Kuhn,
I. Lakatos, P. Laudan, P. Feyerabend or most other "new" philosophers
of science.  These folks argue eloquently that science is (to some
extent at least) an enterprise that needs some social influence in it
(and not mere logical, empirical, argument).  

If we keep people from exercising social influence in CSCW (which we
may not be able to do anyway) we may produce chaos.  Kiesler, Sproull
et al. (at CMU) have done studies showing that Email negotiations take
much longer to conclude than face-to-face negotiations - and often do
not conclude at all but end up with people screaming in all caps at
each other and leaving the lab by separate exits.

The Information Lens allows for some social influence.  You can, for
instance always dump mail from Joe Jerk (be a gatekeeper).  Perhaps
the challenge is to find a way to smoothly wed social influence with
CSCW.
-Chuck Huff
Psychology Department
St. Olaf College
Northfield MN 55057