I'm confident in our voting and recount system; I observed it closely in 2008, and it gave me immense faith that the laws protect the will of the people collectively by insuring the standard is basing outcomes on voter's individual intent -- even prior to the clarifications that followed the Coleman/Franken recount and legal challenges. Where there's a close vote count, such as David Bly's very narrow loss to Kelby Woodard, we must obviously allow the process to play out fully to be certain of the election outcome, but I see no reason to assume the eristic strategems being pursued by the GOP in the gubernatorial recount will alter the Dayton margin in any substantive way.
So here are some thoughts for both the DFL and the team advising Mr. Emmer, and possibly even Joe Miller's GOP/Tea-Party advisors in Alaska, about what to do moving forward. When those who are opposed to a given group are given unflattering/negative labels, when warnings that challenge a group's assumptions are ignored or deprecated, when a group is so sure it's right that it won't consider outside opinions and/or advice, "groupthink" happens.
GroupThink Happens
When groups experience the stress of failure or the perception of a threat from "outside" -- in other words, when a group feels under pressure -- the well-known tendency to hunker down and rely on "the things we already know" or "the way we've always done it" virtually ensures a dynamic of top-down control, which results in the stifling of creativity.
Research into group dynamics suggests that certain cohesive collections of people are particularly prone to fall into this trap, including particularly church boards, university committees, military organizations, and partisan political groups.
Such groups, in the guise of pursuing quick turn-arounds and/or success, run the risk of promoting this counterproductive process. You can calculate the risk by multiplying two tendencies of group leaders: limiting new input and guiding outcomes to preferred ends. To achieve optimal outcomes, those leading any discussion must act as truly "neutral brokers" for ideas and solutions, devoting abundant attention to the process itself rather than manipulating it. It's true for business executives, politicians, team coaches, and countless other group leaders.
Naturally the open-minded collection of ideas has to be followed by a winnowing process, where consideration and experience of leaders may be key, and those accountable for outcomes have a clear interest in attaining success, but short-circuiting the process has been shown repeatedly to result in tactical blunders that ultimately undermine victory.
Leadership Doesn't Just Happen
In much the same way that campaigning for a leadership position requires and tests a very different set of actions and behaviors than actually exercising effective leadership once one is elected by a group to represent their best interests (be they committee members or registered voters,) agreeing on what optimal outcomes might be is obviously not as simple in practice as it seems in theory. Leadership is an intentional process; good leadership is rarely instinctive, and should not be confused with charisma.
Factor in the reality of the Peter Principle and it's easy to see why true leaders at any level in any venture are a precious commodity. In most cases the 2010 elections are done, and those who came up short when the votes were tallied need to think long and hard about what's next. The challenge for the 2012 elections will be finding candidates who are capable of being effective both on the campaign and when serving the people in elected office.
So here are some thoughts for both the DFL and the team advising Mr. Emmer, and possibly even Joe Miller's GOP/Tea-Party advisors in Alaska, about what to do moving forward. When those who are opposed to a given group are given unflattering/negative labels, when warnings that challenge a group's assumptions are ignored or deprecated, when a group is so sure it's right that it won't consider outside opinions and/or advice, "groupthink" happens.GroupThink Happens
When groups experience the stress of failure or the perception of a threat from "outside" -- in other words, when a group feels under pressure -- the well-known tendency to hunker down and rely on "the things we already know" or "the way we've always done it" virtually ensures a dynamic of top-down control, which results in the stifling of creativity.
Research into group dynamics suggests that certain cohesive collections of people are particularly prone to fall into this trap, including particularly church boards, university committees, military organizations, and partisan political groups.
Such groups, in the guise of pursuing quick turn-arounds and/or success, run the risk of promoting this counterproductive process. You can calculate the risk by multiplying two tendencies of group leaders: limiting new input and guiding outcomes to preferred ends. To achieve optimal outcomes, those leading any discussion must act as truly "neutral brokers" for ideas and solutions, devoting abundant attention to the process itself rather than manipulating it. It's true for business executives, politicians, team coaches, and countless other group leaders.
Naturally the open-minded collection of ideas has to be followed by a winnowing process, where consideration and experience of leaders may be key, and those accountable for outcomes have a clear interest in attaining success, but short-circuiting the process has been shown repeatedly to result in tactical blunders that ultimately undermine victory.
Leadership Doesn't Just Happen
In much the same way that campaigning for a leadership position requires and tests a very different set of actions and behaviors than actually exercising effective leadership once one is elected by a group to represent their best interests (be they committee members or registered voters,) agreeing on what optimal outcomes might be is obviously not as simple in practice as it seems in theory. Leadership is an intentional process; good leadership is rarely instinctive, and should not be confused with charisma.
Factor in the reality of the Peter Principle and it's easy to see why true leaders at any level in any venture are a precious commodity. In most cases the 2010 elections are done, and those who came up short when the votes were tallied need to think long and hard about what's next. The challenge for the 2012 elections will be finding candidates who are capable of being effective both on the campaign and when serving the people in elected office.
No comments:
Post a Comment