Posts Tagged ‘group psychology’

20100426_cooky_1

Girls’ Generation endorse an LG handset.

Almost a year ago I first encountered ‘K pop’ (and that was before Gangnam Style I might add) and my musical taste has never quite recovered. I should have known it was too good to be true that these extremely high quality production music videos could be getting made without someone paying the piper.

It all seems like harmless fun: the K pop idols come across as being more hard-working and modest than many of their North American counterparts. The whole phenomenon seemed to be emblematic of a newly confident 21st Century Asia. Still does.

Then as I was walking through Sydney’s World Square I noticed a familiar face in a shop that sells beauty products: Yoona from the group Girls’ Generation. Curious, I wondered what other products the group has endorsed.

Well, it turns out that Girls Generation, collectively, are rated as Korea’s single most influential product pushers.  Their list of endorsements is so extensive it has its own Wikipedia page and includes Samsung, Hyundai and Philips Van Heusen, all of whom have current labour and/or environmental controversies.

These nine sirens work very, very hard at persuading people to buy stuff, without asking too many questions about where it comes from or how it is made. They, or at least their label, SMTown, are getting paid a lot to do so.

K pop stars, you see, aren’t struggling artists trying to break through the clutter. They are employees, completely owned by their record labels who find, package and then promote them relentlessly. They sign on in their teens to fifteen-year contracts. The music is all written by other people and put in front of them to sing. Their employer has the power to decide everything from what they eat to who they can date (typically no one! … sorry fellas) I’m sure they get no say over their brand endorsements either. Faust-like, they barter away their right to object when they signed on with the label. Korea has such a culture of conformity that it’s difficult to imagine a lone objector anyway.

The performers are themselves in need of better protection of their rights. Four members of another girl group, KARA, recently tried to sue their label, asserting that their contract was unfair. Essentially it made them carry the risk of poor sales and in one year each of the performers were paid just $10,000.

South Korea’s corporate hegemony could be the closest thing we can see in real life to Huxley’s Brave New World, a place where everyone cheerfully keeps the wheels of production turning without daring to ask questions. Just keep buying those cellphones and televisions thanks very much.

This is the dystopian 'Neo Seoul' from the film Cloud Atlas. It's hard to pick the difference

This is the dystopian ‘Neo Seoul’ from the film Cloud Atlas. It’s hard to pick the difference

Evil masterminds?

So when you want to point the finger, who is it that is responsible? Does the buck really stop with a handful of charming but ethically undiscriminating young ladies? Not really. The K pop idols are only so popular because of dupes who are suckered in by all the colour and movement, and all I can say is “Touchez”.

We have met the enemy, and he is us ~Walt Kelly

* Al Jazeera also looked at this issue of ‘Who’s to blame?’ only a week ago. Here is the segment:

Related posts:

Red Packets

Red Packets (Photo credit: xcode)

Reciprocity is so fundamental to social organisation yet we don’t often bother to name or think about it.

An underlying norm of reciprocity is by itself a powerful engine for motivating, creating, sustaining, and regulating the cooperative behavior required for self-sustaining social organizations, as well as for controlling the damage done by the unscrupulous. (Wikipedia)

An example of reciprocity in action are the hundreds of millions of packets of money being exchanged around the world today wherever Chinese culture has had an influence.

Reciprocity as a norm pre-dates its more recent manifestations such as the Golden Rule of Christianity or the similar formulation promulgated by Confucius (Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you).

In contemporary nation-states it finds its way into positive law and, when it doesn’t, it is what drives activism to make laws fairer.

The problem is that it is something we devised in a small group world, where co-operation is necessary for survival, whereas today we live in a planetary society. However the underlying necessity is no less valid, in fact if anything it is even more valid than it was in millennia past.

Pre-modern humans knew survival skills. They knew how to find their own food and could survive if isolated from their community. Larger scale social organisation meant specialisation and abandoning the ability to fend for oneself in every respect. Now that has gone a step further and arguably entire nations are now integrated in the same manner.

Yet … where’s the reciprocity gone in this equation? Those people who work in other nations making our clothes, growing our food, assembling our consumer knick-knacks, what do they get for their trouble? Poverty wages that would never allow them to aspire to the same kind of lifestyle. How fair is that?

We all tolerate this, we are all aware that we are tolerating it, and we feel uneasy about it because of reciprocity. If they were merely poor it would be another matter, but they are poor because people pay them peanuts, in the name of the consumer: i.e. you and me.

All of this because “they” are so far away we never get to meet them or learn their names.

Related:

This book is somewhat brief but still fills a niche and might be helpful to teachers and workplace educators.

Robert Hoyk and Paul Hersey’s book The Ethical Executive: Becoming Aware of the Root Causes of Unethical Behaviour is a compilation of 45 drivers of unethical behavior. Some are psychological and some are situational.

It’s quite a long list so quite handy for anyone who teaches in this area to draw on for role-plays or case studies.

Some of the problems described include:

The individual chapters could have benefited from a little more detail, as they breeze through 45 ‘traps’ in just 120 pages. The problems were sufficiently described but what I found surprising was the lack of an attempt to describe ways to avoid or counteract them. This was omitted from the individual chapters and there was no overall conclusion at all, just a case study of the Jonestown incident.

Not to worry. The main benefit of the book is in identifying and naming these various traps because many of them are situations we get into in everyday life, telling ourselves it’s not a big deal because we haven’t been called out about it, or because no dire problem has emerged.

As a reality check, it’s not bad.

Read more or buy the book from Stanford University Press

1876 cover of Robert's Rules of Order , a book...

Image via Wikipedia

Factories paying below-living-wage conditions and with poor working conditions don’t spontaneously appear; someone decides to establish them and disregard what kind of lives their workers will have to lead.

As a defender of worker engagement and of tripartite labour relations, I find consensus decision-making naturally appealing. Certainly whenever the workers or even a third party gets a say, the result is just about always better than if they don’t.

So, why doesn’t everyone do this? Are there costs of trying to please everybody? What are they?

The collaborators who have produced the Wikipedia page on Consensus decision-making have done a great job at explaining its purpose, benefits, drawbacks and alternatives (as one would hope, since Wikipedia is itself consensus-based!)

Consensus differs most strongly from hierarchy, or top-down decision-making. It also differs from parliamentary procedure (or in the USA, Robert’s Rules of Order) which are designed to obtain majority support for proposals. Consensus decision-making strives to avoid having ‘losing’ stakeholders. You might say it places the continued functioning of the forum or organisation above any single decision-making outcome.

Practically speaking consensus rules may not require absolute unanimity but simple supermajority to avoid situations like the UN Security Council where five historically powerful nations retain unfettered use of a veto.

The main problems of the consensus approach identified by the Wiki editors are:

  • Preservation of the status quo through inaction gives one side of debate a built-in advantage.
  • “Squeaky wheels”: The most difficult stakeholders are carefully attended to while the most agreeable are ignored. This rewards people for disagreeing and might incline them to do so out of simple self-interest, bogging down the process.
  • Abilene paradox: To reach a solution everyone agrees with, the group may end up adopting a position no individual member desired.

So consensus is not a panacea but you be the judge, it might still be a better approach than unfettered managerial prerogative. Ask the people who work in and run co-operatives what they think.

No one expects heroic virtue in day to day situations. Granted, no one expects dramatic moral failings, either but, faced with an immoral situation, how does one react?

In a famous 1971 experiment at Stanford University, Dr. Phillip Lombardo asked volunteers to play the part of prison guards and inmates. He then began issuing instructions for the guards to humiliate the prisoners (it’s hard to imagine the study passing present-day ethics standards).

The guards all followed the script, as did the prisoners for that matter, with no one standing up to question the status quo.

Two lessons from this: Firstly, the hero we expect from movies does not usually turn up. Secondly, we are foolish to settle for decision-making structures that load the dice against such a person in the first place.

In an earlier post I talked about ‘GroupThink’, the phenomemon in which teams make bad decisions when they value cohesiveness and ‘not rocking the boat’ too highly and fail to fully explore the options available.

It’s relevant to many of the labour rights problems reported on this site as they are usually known about but brushed aside at boardroom level, be it at a sourcing company or the direct employer. This is not because executives have horns growing out of their heads, it’s because they do not wish to question what everyone else seems to be going along with.

The people who eventually speak up and pressure those boards to make better decisions are usually outsiders like NGOs or journalists, which is much harder than doing so from the inside.

It is so much easier if good decision-making processes are established from the beginning.

Here are seven easy steps to prevent GroupThink arising in groups, as recommended by Irving Janis.

Also, it’s the end of the week so, if you have another couple of minutes, here’s a video of GroupThink definitely NOT happening! -

Ethical failings in the corporate world are nothing new. Labour rights abuses by suppliers are one small part of a firmanent of corporate misdeeds. Financial fraud. Short-cuts on product safety. Price fixing. Environmental disregard. Onshore labour rights shortfalls. The public hears about these things when they go horribly wrong, but they bubble away in the background constantly.

More often than not, problems are known to more than one person in a company. They are caused not by anti-heroic behaviour but by group behaviour.

Earlier we looked at diffusion of responsibility. Another phenomenon is GroupThink. It’s defined on Wikipedia as:

a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimise conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analysing and evaluating ideas.

It is one of two negative consequences of group cohesion (the other is group polarisation, that is the tendency for groups to adopt more extreme positions than their individual members would).

Groupthink has been a factor in some astonishingly bad military decisions including the Vietnam and second Iraq wars.

Group coherence / team-mindedness is highly valued in organisations as it produces tangible results. Reports get done on time, sales figures improve, meetings run smoothly. No one is concerned as to whether it’s possible to get carried away with group cohesion (“or at least, no one worth speaking of” -Douglas Adams) until it causes a major problems. Even then the group may not recognise their own behaviour as the cause.

The good news is, the risk of GroupThink arising in an organisation can be mitigated. This in turn reduces the likelihood of decisions being made too rashly and without due consideration of the effects they will have on people outside the room.

Irving Janis, who coined the expression, says that there are two antecedent causes: (1) a provocative situational context and (2) structural faults in the organisation. Not much can be done to avoid the first, but the second can be remedied.

Janis considers the major structural problems as:

  • Insulation
  • Lack of a tradition of impartial leadership
  • Lack of norms requiring methodological procedures
  • Homogeneity of members’ social background / ideology

Another psychologist Clark McCauley devised a similar list, except he uses the term ’directive leadership’ in place of points two and three.

Picture: Dana Ellyn, danaellyn.com

So this is the unlikely place for a heroic employee to maintain high standards of ethics: by subtly questioning accepted wisdom.

For a person with a responsibility for hiring, this is one reason to find new employees with differing backgrounds.

For a person with managerial responsibility, the key is to find means of encouraging dissenting viewpoints to be heard without fear of retribution or isolation. One method is to always appoint a “Devil’s Advocate” in decision making, whose job it is to explore contrarian views (and to make sure the role gets rotated).

For an individual inside an organisation, the key is to be constructively deviant, to put forward alternate interpretations or suggestions in a manner that is clearly intended to be helpful and not merely as a smart-alec.

(A continuation of last week’s post)

People might become aware of unethical processes in a company but never say anything further. What are the reasons for this, and can we do anything about it? How do we get people inside a company to take notice of a problem?

The main barrier is everyone’s reduced sense of personal responsibility when they are part of an organisation. There are other psychological factors too, including fear of reprisal, fear of lost relationships / career path / etc. These can be mitigated when people coming forward are demonstrably not punished or held back as a result. So it is important for organisations to remember to publicise the result of grievances, lest people get the view that nothing comes of it.

Behaviour of managers plays a part. Managers who characteristically use euphemistic language to skip over blatant inequities are not likely to be trusted. Concerned employees do not want to have to play games to raise an issue of concern. Everyone in an organisation can play a part in creating a culture where people mean what they say.

Complaint procedures that are deficient are a major barrier. Employees who see that a process is either hard to access or applied arbitrarily are unlikely to try to make use of it. If this is the case in an organisation, it can be raised any time, particularly the access issue. More training can be requested. Needless red tape can be removed. No one could object to that!

So what would an ideal process look like, in which employees can feel empowered to voice their concerns?

  • They consider it part of their job to assist the company in moving to sustainable business practices
  • They are shown (not merely said) to be rewarded for coming forward
  • The procedure is well known and not complicated to follow
  • Concerns can be raised without the person being identified
  • Senior management are seen to be supportive of the process

A large enough organisation should also have a “zero barrier” office with no other managerial function, where concerns can be raised confidentially. An effective union can also fulfill this role, and may have to if the company is unwilling.

Source: ‘Dealing with – and reporting – unacceptable behaviour’, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, Vol 2(1), 2009, pp52-64 http://ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/2009Vol2Journal.pdf