Groupthink_Indifference

If you really believe what you’re doing is right, and you believe it’s important, and you truly feel that you are a pioneer who is making a difference, you may make some mistakes, but your energy and commitment will help you overcome them. – Steve Case, Founder and CEO, AOL

Some years ago I wrote about groupthink [1] and, today, I found myself leaning towards writing another article on the same topic. As you have read, this article is about “Leadership, Groupthink, and Indifference.” The idea is that either an organization is shaped by leadership or it is shaped by groupthink. Perhaps, the truth is most organizations are probably shaped by degrees of both. Of course, I must share with you my bias which is simply this: “Leadership is always preferred over groupthink.” Hopefully, this article will motivate you to develop your leadership skills.

No one would probably disagree with me that defining “leadership” isn’t an easy task. But, having said that and regardless of the most popular definition today, it always seems to be an uphill battle when encouraging new ideas and change in how people think. The lack of a clear and unequivocal definition isn’t the issue in this article. Rather, it is about leading with integrity, and it is about the right of individuals to make up their own minds when it comes to which organization they want to belong to and why. The vast array of materials written on groupthink demonstrates that it is not the ethical way to deal with organizational issues and/or its members.

Anyone who has been part of an organization understands the bureaucracy and red tape, which often results when members are required to reinforce existing organizational bias or thinking. Obviously, those in charge of most organizations can be so extremely proactive and passionate about “their way of doing things” that alternatives (even when they make sense) do not exist. The reader may ask, “Why not?” The short answer might be, “We don’t want to see those members go to another organization.” And, they believe it so strongly that no one is allowed to “rock the boat.” Try it and there will be “hell to pay” is what one colleague shared with me recently.

Groupthink is a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis [2] in 1972 to describe a process by which a group can make bad or irrational decisions. In a groupthink situation, each member who is responsible for making decisions for an organization is encouraged to reach a consensus with the mission or purpose of the organization. This results in a situation in which those in charge agree on an action that each member might normally consider unwise. Few would argue that groupthink does not exist. Few would agree that exercising direct pressure on others to conform to a particular behavior or belief is appropriate. Groupthink leads to poor decisions. And, it also results in the deterioration of mental decisions and, to a degree, moral judgment.

Why adults in responsible positions aren’t more aware of the negative consequences of acting unwisely isn’t necessarily an unknown. Often they do know what their decisions will do to others, yet they go ahead and do it anyway. Janis [2] believes there are three main causes of groupthink. First, members of a highly cohesive group are more likely to engage in groupthink and less likely to raise questions to break the cohesion. Second, the group is motivated to stay in control by isolating itself from outside opinions and/or ideas. Third, strong leadership often leads to groupthink because the leaders are more likely to promote their opinions as the only right solution. As leaders of an organization, therefore, they are likely to promote the mission of the organization as having precedent over everything else.

To my knowledge, groupthink is not a topic that has been discussed within the context of exercise physiology except for my earlier article [1]. Yet, it exists in related fields of study, such as sports medicine at an extremely high degree. Part of why this is the case might be a function of the high degree of stress within sports medicine to maintain status quo. Understandably, few might appreciate this particular point but, nonetheless, it is obviously true. The standard commercial-like statements that sports medicine is the gold standard is ridiculous. If anything, exercise physiologists ought to be given a pat on the back for their work across 50+ years of scientific research on athletics, fitness, and rehabilitation. They are the “gold standard” that needs sharing with the healthcare community. Exercise physiologists created the gold standard, not sports medicine!

Also, this brings up a very interesting point. If you are an exercise physiologist, why aren’t you supporting the leadership of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists? It makes no sense whatsoever not to do so. Imagine the laughter from members of other healthcare professions upon realizing that “you” are not a member of “your own” professional organization. Please also appreciate that if you can read the previous without any feelings at all for not supporting ASEP, you are probably in the control of groupthink. It is a classic case of groupthink when smart people fail to do the right things for the right reasons. Clearly, there has been ample time since 1997 to get the picture clear. Many non-doctorates get it, which raises the questions:

2. Why have the academic exercise physiologists continued to ignore the work of the ASEP leadership?

3. Why aren’t more exercise physiologists helping to develop the professionalism of exercise physiology?

Answers to these questions lie in understanding groupthink. Rather than demonstrating the support for ASEP, exercise physiologists support the accreditation of non-exercise physiology degree-programs from which students often refer to themselves as exercise physiologists! In other words, from the ASEP perspective, the sports medicine accreditation effort is a product of groupthink (and it will end up being a fatal mistake). Their thinking points to the fact that they have failed to examine the risks of their decision to students of these programs. It is just a matter of time that everything will go wrong. Exercise science is not a profession! Kinesiology is not a profession! None of the 15 to 20 or more related undergraduate degree programs constitutes a profession. Why would any organization get involved in accrediting non-professional degree programs? The answer is clear: Groupthink!

Groupthink can happen in any environment, but it often happens following a period of success. The decision-makers become comfortable with each other and self-congratulatory. Since recent success has been achieved, they falsely assume two things. First, they tend to think they are primarily responsible for success, when in reality it is those who implemented and managed the changes who deserve most of the credit. Secondly, since the group bonds emotionally, they think their decisions are naturally best when in reality they have become arrogant and self-serving. This leads the group to ignore or filter out any facts or information that doesn’t fit into their basic assumptions. Anyone who questions their assumptions or decisions is not considered a “team player.” -- weLEAD Online Magazine

The accreditation plan was fatally flawed from the beginning, but none of the sports medicine exercise physiologists, as advisers spoke out against it. Perhaps, not so surprising, they fit every one of the main factors that identify the existence of groupthink. Obviously, they are well educated throughout the

United States

. And, they understand that the inner circle of leaders controls the agenda. If they are to move upwards in the organization, they know that speaking out against the plan would end any possibility of doing so. As a result, the membership is essentially paralyzed from sharing true feelings and ideas. No one enjoys criticism, and most people do everything possible to avoid it.

I wonder what the outcome might have been had sports medicine invited experts in exercise physiology from the ASEP organization to share their views. Do you think that the same outcome would have occurred or might there have been new ideas on the table, having resulted from ASEP members asking questions? Frankly, I’m not sure what would have happened. But, I think the future of the two organizations would be better today. Faulty decisions, regardless of how they are made, are still faulty and almost always result in a decrease in sound judgment. Not having the appropriate exposure to the leaders of the ASEP organization kept them more or less insulated from outside opinions. Also, this fact plus having no clear philosophical rules for decision making set the stage for inevitable problems.

These pressures led to carelessness in leadership decisions and irrational thinking at a committee or board level. Maintaining unanimity is important, especially not knowing whether the decisions will bring the right or wrong results. From the ASEP leadership perspective, the sports medicine decision regarding accreditation (and personal training certification) has resulted in an unenviable situation that is costly in terms of membership and professional standing in the world. The in-group pressure resulting from “over-cohesiveness” is the problem. Since no one wanted to “break the peace” by expressing a contrary view, such as: “Why don’t we talk to the ASEP leaders?” Failure was destined to be the outcome. It is now just a matter of time; all resulting from the sense of feeling that those in charge feel morally right, given that they feel too good about themselves.

As difficult as it may be to accept, everyone around the table at the time of the decision knew to keep their questions to themselves. Self-censorship is a learned task, often resulting from the members’ sense of responsibility to the organization (as well as their future in the organization). No one wants to disturb the cohesion of the leaders, much less appear to hinder the agenda of those in charge. In other words, organizational (or group) conformity carried to its extreme leads to groupthink. The following is a quick overview of the symptoms of groupthink [3]:

1. Mindguarding. To maintain the status quo of the group, members enforce blind adherence by not allowing alternative views from being presented. Maintaining group cohesiveness precludes the critical evaluation of thinking differently, such as: “Don’t let that ASEP organization become part of us or the way we think.”

2. Stereotyping. "Troublemakers, that’s all they are. No one in his right mind would listen to them." Again, in order to avoid upsetting the established solidarity (and/or comfort zone) of the organization, such statements are believed necessary to negatively stereotype anyone not a member of the established organization. Why? Because outsiders are considered a threat to the way in which they do their business.

3. Self-Censorship. Members of the organization who would like to speak out and share their feelings about the alternative views do not because they are not comfortable doing so or they. How many times have they seen this repeat itself throughout history? Failing to disagree with their colleagues or leaders out of a sense of loyalty simply isn’t appropriate behavior among adults. Get some backbone [4].

4. Rationalization. Instead of getting some backbone, members rationalize their behavior and interaction with non-members. They may argue that members of ASEP aren’t important or say, "After all, they aren’t with us so they aren’t for us and, thus we are against them (and it is the right thing to do) because we are important and they are not important."

5. Direct Pressure. Part of the reason members don’t speak out is the “pressure by other members to conform.” No one wants to be the “one dissenting voice” even if it’s the right thing to do. So, when pressured by colleagues, it is easier to speak negatively about non-members. Of course, this doesn’t make it right.

6. Illusion of Unanimity. “I’m sure we are all in agreement about ASEP, right?” The short answer is “no.” But, no one is likely to step forward to point this out for fear of being laughed at or ridiculed. It is only natural to expect the members to not agree about the value of the ASEP organization. But, they falsely believe they are in agreement because it’s a psychological ingredient of the mindset that dictates group consensus.

7. llusion of Morality. Again, as part of the feeling of group solidarity, the members believe it is okay to be mean and/or negative to others (or those who are perceived as a threat). They even believe their behavior is ethical and/or appropriate, when it is obvious that isn’t the case at all. Hence, they believe that their actions aren’t bad (meaning, they are too good to do wrong things). They see themselves as the good guys!

8. Illusion of Invulnerability. “We are the best.” “We were here first.” This kind of thinking is evident of problems within the leadership. Likewise, “The public knows we are credible.” These statements suggest an attitude of invincibility. Members become fixated on the notion that they all knowing and invincible. Their exaggerated level of confidence often sets the stage for mistakes and risk taking that would usually be avoided.

Leadership, on the other hand, is all about motivating and helping others, changing what hasn’t worked, having the confidence that your actions are for the right reasons, and having the integrity and hope for creating and assuming the very best in transitioning to where one wants to be [5]. Leaders think for themselves. They understand the responsibility before them, especially the shift in perspective regarding exercise physiology as a healthcare profession. Put another way, leadership from within ASEP is interested in sharing its power and encouraging initiatives through the work of the membership. Having a clear vision of exercise physiology is the key to leadership.

Also, having a clear sense of who can lead or who will be a leader is important. Not everyone is a leader, and some students and colleagues simply don’t want to lead. Smith [6] identified important traits for being a leader. The concern is whether students and exercise physiologists have these traits. In fact, in regards to students, have you wondered why most students do not seem interested in being a leader? Are there so few natural leaders in exercise science and related programs because they lack these traits and, if so, why? Perhaps answers to the following questions will help clarify this concern:

If the student’s answer is “yes” to the questions, there is a good chance he or she is a leader. What is really obvious is that leaders are people who have the ability to “stay the course.” They understand the commitment to sustainability. This is especially important today with the increased need to update the role of the exercise physiologist in healthcare. The profession needs exercise physiology leadership to nurture necessary changes from within its infrastructure. And, aside from understanding the latest technology and complex metabolic equipment to assess the cardiovascular system, there is a big need to help exercise physiologists understand the ethical dimension of their scope of practice and interaction with clients. Otherwise, not paying attention to these points does a disservice to new students by not helping them develop as leaders!

The fact that so few academic programs actually offer professional development and/or leadership courses is problematic on several fronts. First, students who do not study “professionalism” have no idea of its value or importance to the profession. Second, how can new members of the profession grow in their leadership ability without mentoring and/or nurturing? The choice is clear [7]:

1. Will exercise physiologists become the architect of change within their own profession?

3. Will they continue to allow the hierarchy within sports medicine to influence exercise physiology?

4. Will they accept themselves, acknowledge their problems, and rely on their own intellect and skills?

5. Will they accept that exercise science is a broken record and that sports medicine has no business acting like an exercise physiology organization?

Exercise physiologists need answers to these questions. They need to get over the idea that no one has the right to speak as about the truth of sports medicine. In fact, it is critical that exercise physiologists sell the ASEP vision, and they need to declare to others they know where they are going. Members need the big picture. They need confidence in leaders, especially in leaders who are committed to the work of the professional organization. Not surprisingly, the “need” is slowly being realized. After all, the circumstances aren’t unique to exercise physiology. Members of other professions have achieved their hope and aspirations from hard work and dedication, too. They demonstrated the guts to make the right decision and, frankly, there is no reason to doubt the same with exercise physiologists. At times, though, it is necessary to go on the offensive. This is especially the case when change is new along with the risks and threats. The offensive posture (i.e., one that says, "I am important, too.") should align itself with the following:

It is virtually impossible to move exercise physiology forwards without talking and working on behalf of the ASEP organization. Students, in particular, must switch from yesterday’s thinking to the unlimited potential that exists with the new exercise physiology. The key to building an enduring future is passion, perseverance, and guts. Those who do not grow and adapt will not evolve beyond the point where they presently are. Understandably ASEP needs key decisions regarding those who will not or cannot help with the following questions that clarify the ASEP vision [8]:

1. What the organization wants to be? To be recognized as the leading professional organization of American scholars and practitioners in the study and application of exercise physiology to fitness, health promotion, rehabilitation, and sports training.

2. What it wants to accomplish? The Society of Exercise Physiologists is dedicated to unifying all exercise physiologists in the United States and worldwide to promote and support the study, practice, teaching, research, and development of the exercise physiology profession.

3. Whom it wants to serve? Through proactive and creative leadership, the Society empowers its members to serve the public good by making an academically sound difference in the application of exercise physiology concepts and insights.

Everyone knows that ASEP exists. Maybe some are just paranoid about its vision. But, why that would be the case is hard to know. For certain, not all students are interested in supporting ASEP or its vision statement. Even the short-term wins (e.g., accreditation, board certification, code of ethics, electronic journals, and so forth) created by ASEP leaders aren’t valued as one would think should be the case. Some colleagues suggest that students simply fail to have the chemistry they need to be helpful in the change process. In other words, they are indifferent to the ASEP efforts. The sense is, within reason of course, they are now part of the problem. It may also be the quality of the students, that is, those who get the big picture and those who do not. The question is this: Can teachers or leaders of the ASEP organization help them compute a different view? The short answer is “probably no.”

Of course an important objective of ASEP leadership is to help the less passionate about ASEP to get more responsive. The leaders readily admit that it isn’t going to be easy. Students differ in many ways, including not just energy and intelligence, but in duty, leadership skills, and attitudes.. If a person doesn’t want to be part of an organization, there isn’t any point in trying to force such a person and that is certainly not the intent of the ASEP leadership. Frankly, it is important to point out that the leaders really don’t want to waste their time with the discontent or uninterested students and/or colleagues. They want to work with those who desire to be taken to a place of distinction and credibility. They want to work with inspiring students and colleagues; those who are fired up to knock down the walls of ignorance, indifference, and failed beliefs.

Thoughts, opinions, and feelings can be encouraging or discouraging to anyone who is working to build a profession. Hence, it is inconceivable that time should be wasted on those who don’t get it. Moreover, one of the worst things that can happen is to help others who subsequently engage in subtle sabotage. This may sound harsh, but it is the reality of politics and the industry itself. To these individuals, nothing matters more than controlling one’s own personal and/or organizational interests. Going forward doesn’t matter, at least not as much as figuring out the formula for success even if it is less than appropriate for everyone involved. These individuals do not respect the ideas of others and that is an obvious weakness on their behalf.

There is no reason not to fight for your ideas, if you think you are right. But, if the other person’s idea is better, you should accept it and then be a supporter of it. – Don Fisher, The Gap

Recently, I was asked, "Do physical therapists have a passion for their professional organization?" That’s like asking, “Do cows produce milk?” The answer is obvious. The American Physical Therapy Association continually shows that the importance of professionalism on its web pages, and the APTA teaches the value of professionalism and career satisfaction to all PT students. In fact, Swisher and Page, authors [9] of the texts, Professionalism in Physical Therapy understand the point and published an excellent book regarding the same. They know that professions can’t afford to have uninspired, uninvolved people working just for a paycheck. A disengaged and unresponsive workforce will not represent the profession well. They know that professionalism helps to decrease boredom and carelessness in the workplace.

These are just some of the reasons to not allow negative comments of students or colleagues get to you. Also, in terms of past decisions (mistakes or otherwise) don’t let them decrease your effectiveness in mentoring others to adapt to the ASEP goals and objectives. Everyone has challenges to deal with, and no one knows all the answers to a given issue. The difference is that the ASEP leaders have worked at learning from their mistakes, which raises the question: “When will students do the same?” Or, stated somewhat differently, when will they get past the “do nothing syndrome?” The answer to this question would help a lot. For now, it seems that should the students have the desire to act, it is displaced by their fear of doing so. Some think it may be their sense of failure if they should step up to the plate. Or, it could be simple “indifference” and, if so, why waste time with them?

Either way, exercise physiology is changing and students need to change with it. The necessity for change is self-evident by now, even if there are students and colleagues who lack the courage to so. Others will learn to embrace the ASEP reality. Others will continue to recognize the danger with “groupthink.” They will learn that the pressure to belong or to benefit from group acceptance isn’t worth giving up a person’s individuality. Exercise physiologists and students will learn that without a climate of openness, members can act in unhealthy and irrational ways. This is the dark side of groupthink. The real question, of course, is whether students and others already in the profession will start thinking for themselves. Certainly the impact of failing to do so is huge. Everyone in other healthcare fields are constantly changing what they do and how they think, shouldn’t exercise physiologists do the same? Incredibly, though, it is a slow process.

At this point, all anyone can do is the best he or she can to influence the process. And, of course, this speaks to students and other potential members of the ASEP organization. Since the “competition” is real, not imagined, and since “politics” is relentless along with aggressive, irrational ideas (like creating more fitness professional certifications), why would anyone want to be around those who can’t embrace the dream of something better? Why not expect students and colleagues to be sincere in making exercise physiology better and in programmatic and rational ways? Shouldn’t students be eager to work on the behalf of ASEP, excited to work for a better exercise physiology, and want to share their passion for doing the right things for the right reasons?

After all, who is responsible for the growth and sustainability of exercise physiology as a healthcare profession if it isn’t each and every person with an understanding of the same? Don’t exercise physiologists want to be the best they can be, and compete successfully, financially and otherwise, with other healthcare professionals? Answers to these questions and others like them should be self-evident. The real trick, however, is getting students and others to show some backbone, energy, integrity, and caring for the profession. These are things this article is trying to get across. The danger is the lack of adaptability and a willingness on part of students to grow in the spirit of fascination with the professionalism of exercise physiology. They don’t seem to understand the power in the ownership of "exercise as medicine" [10].

Even when the obvious is right before the eyes of students they are still blind to the process of change. The reality is that they are not academically prepared and, therefore, they are not mentally prepared to address the multifaceted factors involved in the ASEP effort. This is unfortunate since their efforts obviously are important and a big part of the growing consensus and vision of the ASEP organization. Hence, there will always be students and colleagues who just don’t get it. However difficult it will be, the challenge is to do what one can to get them involved. But if they persist in their behavior to discount the ASEP effort, the best thing to do is to avoid wasting time with them. In other words, it is far better to manage one’s time and opportunity to engage others than to waste it. Understandably, this (again) may sound harsh. It is life, however. And, the bottom line is that a person cannot put passion into someone who doesn’t get it or doesn’t want it. Also, ASEP will be better without them; it will be stronger organization with members who value it and who are willing to work on behalf of it.

There are only three questions left to ask: First, what is best for the exercise physiologist? Leadership is important. Groupthink isn’t. Conviction is required. Lack of passion is a waste of time. Hope and expectation are critical to sustaining growth. Disbelief and distortion are mis-managed ideas and feelings. While there is more to say, this is good for now. Second, what do you think? Third, what do you believe is the key to the growth of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists? Of course, implicit in your feeling is that your answer is based on the strength of your conviction for exercise physiology. Each person can make a significant contribution. It’s the members of the ASEP organization who make it work. Let’s then build it together for all of us.

Dealing with Leadership, Groupthink, and Indifference

Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC

Professor and Chair

Department of Exercise Physiology

The College of St. Scholastica

Duluth, MN 55811

If you really believe what you’re doing is right, and you believe it’s important, and you truly feel that you are a pioneer who is making a difference, you may make some mistakes, but your energy and commitment will help you overcome them. – Steve Case, Founder and CEO, AOL

It’s your life. Do not live to someone else’s standard. Live to your own. – Peter Urs Bender

1. Boone, T. (2005). Too Much Conformity Leads to Groupthink and Failure. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 8:9 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/TooMuchConformityLeadsToGroupthink.html

2. Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972, page 9.

3. Boone, T. (2002). Exercise Physiology of the Future: Thinking Out of the Box. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 5:11 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ThinkingOutsideTheBoxExercisePhysiology.html

4. Boone, T. (2004). Show Some Backbone! Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 7:11 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ShowSomeBackbone.html

5. Bender, P. U. (1997). Leadership From Within. Toronto, Canada: Stoddart Publishing Company, Limited.

6. Fred. S. (1996). Ten Ways to Identify a Promising Person. Leadership Journal. 17:4:30.

7. Boone, T. (2005). A Crisis in Leadership in Exercise Physiology. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 8:12 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ExercisePhysiologyCrisisInLeadership.html

8. American Society of Exercise Physiologists. (2007). ASEP vision. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/vision

9. Swisher, L. L. and Page, C. G. (2005). Professionalism of Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Inc.

10. Boone, T. (2006). Exercise Physiology and Exercise as Medical Treatment. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 9:12 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ExerciseAsMedicalTreatment.html