Groupthink can be Disasterous

Published: Financial Post, Toronto

In the past, a ruler would be very likely to execute a messenger if the message displeased the king. Today we are more subtle: displeasing messages get filtered out before they ever reach the ruler.
The Bay of Pigs, the decision to bomb North Vietnam, and now the Iranian adventure provide us with ample illustration of Groupthink. This magnificently Orwellian term was coined by psychologist Irving Janis to refer to a group's inability to tolerate dissent, to a situation in which getting agreement around a solution becomes more important than developing the best solution.
The decision by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to resign following the rejection of his advice by President Carter indicates that Groupthink still dominates the top American and, no doubt, Canadian policy making bodies. President Carter, like Presidents Kennedy and Johnson before him, is learning the hard way that tough action must be taken in order to prevent the domination of the forces of Groupthink.
What does Groupthink look like? How would we recognize it in our own decision-making groups? Janis and earlier Norman Maier have identified a number of symptoms that we should be on guard against.
It is often difficult, because of the Groupthink phenomenon, forus to recognize when these symptoms occur in our own groups-- after all we know better, we would never make the same mistakes. That illustrates the first and greatest problem: the group believes that it is right; that it is right both factually and morally, and consequently the scenario of the operation (Bay of Pigs, Iran) will unfold as planned. This sense of invulnerability and moral correctness leads to four things that affect the group as it engages in the process of making a decision. First there exists a sense of unanimity within the group; everyone agrees on a plan. Indications of this are a failure to generate more than one or two alternative courses of action, and an individual's unwillingness to express his or her reservations -- individuals are their own self-censors. They suppress and keep to themselves their doubts and reservations about the plan. Often, many people share these reservations and the group lacks a true unanimity. In addition, members of the group put subtle pressure on those whose questions slip through the guard of their own self-censoring. As Janis observes they do this by limiting the bounds of criticism to details of the plan rather than to its underlying assumptions and by isolating the dissenter into a slightly ridiculous role as in Lyndon Johnson's term for Bill Moyers: "Let's hear what Mr-Stop-the-Bombing has to say". Finally and most injuriously the group develops the MindGuards. These are the people who filter the information coming to the group. They make sure that outside information is suppressed or reinterpreted if it fails to support the cherished assumptions of the group. As a result of this process, the group makes its decision only upon information that is supportive of that decision. This builds up a self-fulfilling cycle of correctness. The illusion of rightness and unanimity is preserved; no disruptive questioning or information is admitted by the group.
These processes are pervasive in decision-making groups. One of the few ways of reducing their severity is to institutionalise dissent. Janis and Maier prescribe several mechanisms for doing this. They represent a re-establishment of the traditional American system of checks and balances in the political process.
A group should routinely make decisions in a two stage process. First, critical evaluation should be suspended and a wide variety of alternative courses of action generated; the final list should consist of the off-beat as well as the obvious. This can be done by having several subgroups or individuals brainstorm lists of alternatives which are then brought back to the policy making group. In addition, group members should be encouraged to discuss the issues with their fellow workers and subordinates so as to bring a wider range of alternatives to the group's attention.
Second, each alternative should be criticized in terms of its strengths and weaknesses, with equal time given to both aspects. Work should be done on integrating several flawed solutions into a better one. This can be done by the leader of the group formally assigning the responsibilities of criticizing the alternatives to each group member. This alone is not enough; the leader must accept with good grace and an open mind the criticisms made about his ideas and proposals. Without this, all criticism will degenerate to a few pro forma comments. It is also helpful to augment the group, from time to time, with outside members who can bring a wider range of criticisms to bear upon the alternatives under consideration. These criticisms are apt to be less inhibited that those of the group members as they will have not built up any ownership of the alternatives under discussion.
Finally, when the group is close to reaching a decision about the best alternative, the leader should appoint a Devil's Advocate for the two or three options that are under serious consideration. These individuals are to challenge the assumptions and expectations of the proponents of each alternative. At the last step -- once a decision has been taken -- the group should meet one more time to review doubts and challenge the correctness of the decision. We have all experienced what the French call "the bottom of the stairs" feeling when one remembers that critical comment that might have changed the course of a discussion. This 'last chance' meeting gives us the opportunity to make that comment. It is like those Viking chiefs who used to make their decisions twice over: once when drunk and once when sober. If the two agreed they would carry out the decision; if they differed they would think again.
These practices will not completely eliminate errors of judgement, nor will they guarantee success as even the best laid plans may go awry. These procedures will minimize the chance of failure due to overlooking possible alternatives or failing to consider the potential side-effects of the outcome selected. We should salute Secretary Vance who has shown his ability to resist Groupthink and encourage his successor to continue to fight for alternatives within the policy-making group.

walking a fine line

Published: Globe & Mail, Toronto

Walking a thin line is one thing, but this was ridiculous
by
Griffith Evans
It all began the day I received my 1980 Property Tax Assessment from the City of Toronto. Gone was the old multi-stubbed computer card; in its place was a large pale blue sheet with a single receipt stub. These sheets are mailed out monthly. As I was paying my first monthly instalment, my eye taught a glaring error in the description of my small city lot. In transferring between the two computer systems, someone or some machine, had goofed. My lot size was listed as 00.2500 ft by 0000.000 ft -- an impressive set of zeros to the third decimal place. I wondered. if I had always lived in this limbo? No, a quick check of previous tax assessments confirmed that my lot was listed as 131.500 ft. deep.
My first thoughts were of the benefits of my situation: I could appeal my assessment and surely gain a reduction. After all, $700 in an exorbitant sum to pay for occupying no square feet. Then the disadvantages overwhelmed me. According to the records, 1 owned nothing I lived (with a wife, two children, and a large number of mortgages on a thin line -- mathematically a line is defined as having no width -- 25 feet long. That to say the least, was a precarious existence. Balancing all of us, to say nothing of the extensive library that threatens to overflow every room in the house, on this knife-edge is most uncomfortable, as well as damaging to our posteriors and to the bindings of the books.
The problem was of course, confounded by the question of who now owned our property. Did our back fence neighbours own our house, garden, library and all? If they found out about our situation would they march in waving their assessment notice, saying that their lot measures 25 ft. by 263 ft., and serve us with a 30-day eviction notice? Worse did no one own the property? Would armies of squatters, displaced from their homes by the recent wave of mortgage foreclosures, move into the unowned property? Would they settle it: a group in the garage, tents on the lawns, groups in the bedrooms, dining room, basement, and attic?
How the visions of overcrowding appalled me. How the visions of encroachment on our 25 ft. line scared me. We might be crowded off it on to the city property, the road, and end up being grist for the nether grindstone of the City saying "No further" and the upper millstone of the population on the unowned property saying, in no uncertain terms, "Move over."
More fearsome thoughts crowded my imagination. We had just spent a long and messy six months having an addition put on the house -- an 8-foot bite off of the missing 131.5 feet. Despite the warnings of friends experienced in the ways of construction and contractors I am pleased to say that my wife and I are still talking to each other, the children and our relations with them suffered no lasting ill-effects, and, wonder of wonders. we still like our contractor and are pleased with the work he did. But I digress, the point is, can we keep the addition? It is on whose ground? Will we be compelled to raze it to the ground while the ownership question is sorted out? I do not think that relations with wife, children and contractor could survive another demolition/construction cycle. Better to abandon the property and join the squatters in the garage.
Of course, neither the benefits nor the costs of this debacle came to pass. A quick phone call to City Hall soon put matters right. As I write, a corrected Assessment Notice lies on my desk, but I will be keeping my eye on future ones.

Reporting on Separation

Published: Globe & Mail, Toronto.

Your support of the Federalist cause, which I share, is well known. The apposition of two headlines was too much: British papers applaud federalist win in vote; and French press shows pro-sovereignty bias (May 23). Surely what is sauce for the French goose is sauce for the British gander. Keep your opinions for the editorial pages.

Plea to Save Bath

New YorkTimes, Travel Section, page 5

Letters: A Plea to Save Bath
There is a darker side to Bath than the picture painted by James Egan ("The British Spa of Bath: 2,000 Years Old and a Picture of Health," Travel Section, Oct. 5). The whole is being destroyed. In some sectors of the city, for example, houses that could have been rehabilitated are being replaced at similar density with buildings of the chicken-coop variety that fail to blend with their surroundings.
Bath is not simply the Abbey, the baths and Royal Crescent. It is also the terrace upon terrace of simple Georgian row houses; it is the backdrop of the surrounding hills; it is the network of Georgian streets; it is the whole intricate and subtle scheme. This is what is being destroyed.
Those who wish to maintain Bath's setting should contact the Bath Preservation Trust, 1 Royal Crescent, Bath, England.

Gifts to Government

Published: Toronto Star, page B4

Hearing the suggestion that the gift of a swimming pool to the Prime Minister had been ruled to be a gift to the crown and hence was tax deductible aroused a fantasy in my mind as to how the Government of Canada might become more responsive to the people. I must admit that this fantasy arose from my misunderstanding of the news item — I thought that the gift was to be in lieu of taxes rather than merely a deduction from income.
Anyway, I thought "Why Not?" Let gifts to the government be acceptable in lieu of taxes. That way one could support the government services each of us thought useful.
Instead of just a minute fraction of my own tax dollar going to social services for example, I could, by donating a gift to the appropriate department, make sure that my whole tax dollar went to the services that I wanted. In this way each of us could support the services he or she wanted.
All the retired colonels who crave for a military presence in the Arctic could club together and pool their tax-gift to raise a regiment for the defence department. Those who cry for law and order could earmark their gifts for the RCMP; others could specify their gift as support far the unemployed.
This has a glorious. anarchic ring to it — everyone paying for his own thing. My own guess is that under such a system there would be little actual change in the budgetary allocation — there is enough diversity of interest in the country.
There would of course be no reduction in the total sum received by the government. The difference would be that we might be more satisfied with paying our taxes; we would be paying for things that we wanted the government to provide rather than for things government wanted us to have.
Still, government would never permit such anarchy. Maybe they could keep some control by limiting the proportion of tax payment we could earmark in this way or by offering us bargains—when a department was failing to meet its budget and the government wished to maintain that budget then they might offer a $1.10 tax credit for each gift of $1 to that department.
This system, of course, provides a strong incentive for the government to perform In terms of its programs: those that are successful will continue to draw gift support, those that fail will not.
Just maybe, the government should give anarchy a try.
Griffith Evans is a Toronto Teacher

Watergate Nursery Rhymes

Mother Gooser Nixon

The Watergate Rhymes

Dramatis Personae

A is for Archibald, Cox is the name

B is for Bork, who fired the same
C is for Chapin , a cheery trickster
D is for Dean, a talkative mixter
E is for Ervin, guardian of law
F is for Ford, who is holding the floor
G is for Grey, not clever by half
H is for Haldeman, who made the main gaffe
I is for Impeachment, the senate must vote
J is for Jaworski, the prosecutor can't gloat
K is for Kleindienst, who lied among many
L is for Liddy, who bugged for a penny
M is for Mitchell, the chief of campaign
N is for "Guess Who?", again and again
O is for O'Brien, his phone was on tap
P is for Peterson, justice took a slap
Q is for Queer Street, where they'll all end
R is for Rebozo, he's just a friend
S is for Sirica, before who they arraign
T is for Tricky, that's "Guess Who?" again
U is for Uher, the recorder they used
V is for Vengeance, that can't be refused
W is for Watergate, where all began
X is for Xaveria*, the happy hooker who ran
Y is for Questions, asked by the Post
Z is for Ziegler who doesn't answer most.

Watergate Capers

The Tapes	You owe us some tapes Says the Congress agape Don't be so eager Says the hapless Ron Ziegler We'll keep them all here Says the voice of St Clair Just give them up quicker Says the voice of Sirica How can we delay? Asks the White House at bay Just appeal a bit further Chimes the great Warren Burger You must give them up now Says the court, very low How were they erased Ask the experts, amazed It seems rather vague Says Alexander Haig I took out five min Says Rosie, all forgiv'n What of the other ten? Ask the experts again It's a sinister force Says Haig, sans remorse
Refrain	Oh. clean up this mess Says the voice of Congress
Watergate	Oh, who bugged our suite Asked the Democrats in defeatYes, who placed that bug Asked Washington in a fug It was Cubans in exile Says the House with a smile Who ordered it done Asked the judge, not in fun Maybe it was CREEP Says Washington still asleep Has McCord spilled he beans Asked the voice of John Dean Less prison's a reward Says the voice of McCord Is there a cover-up Asks a reporting young pup Yes there has been, Says the voice of John Dean Oh what was the reason Ask the people with a frisson Because we're embroiled Says Nixon, rather roiled Oh who can we roast Asks the Washington Post Just anyone but me Says John Dean with glee Who shall we indict Asks the jury with might Just Nixon's top aides Says Jaworski, unafraid.
Refrain	Oh. clean up this mess Says the voice of Congress

A Chronological Cycle

One, two, Nixon screwed you.

Three, four, the law's at the door.

Five, six, Nixon says nix.

Seven, eight, lawyers debate.

Nine, ten, then he screwed you again.

John, John, the Nixon aide

Of the law was unafraid

The law was broke, and John was took,

And John went off to pokey

Erasures

Little Miss Rosie

In her office quite cozy

Typed up the tapes one day

When in came a phone call

At which she dropped all

And erased bits of tapes away.

Tricky Dick

Tricky old President Nixon, he taped ten thousand words

He played them on his recorder and he wound them back again

And when they were there, they were there.

And when they were gone, they were gone.

But when they were only transcribed, then they were neither there nor gone.


The Raid

As I was going on a plumbers' raid,

I met a chief with seven aides.

Each aide had seven tapes.

Each tape had seven tracks.

Each track had seven gaps.

Gaps, track, tapes, aides,

How many were going on the raid?

A Song

Sing a song of Nixon.

A White House full of slime.

Four and twenty CREEPers tangled in a crime

As the crime's uncovered, some begin to sing.

Now wasn't that a sordid bit of electioneering?

Cover Up

The Chief was in the White House, covering up the links.

The Post was on the track, uncovering all the finks.

The Law was in its office, trying to pin it on them all.

When down came the president and tried to fire them all.

But along came the Senate and reinstated them.
 

Old King Nixon

Old Archie Cox

Was a wily old fox,

And a wily old fox was he.

He called for Dick's tapes,

And he called for Dick's books,

And he called for Dick's tricksters three.

Old tricky Dick

Was a rotten old stick,

And a rotten old stick was he.

He stuck to his tapes,

And he stuck to his books,

But he lost his tricksters three.


Archibald Cox

Little Archie Cox sat upon a box,

A recording tape on his knee.

He pressed with his thumb,

And heard just a hummm.....

And said, "What a bad boy is he."

Robber Nixon

Nixon was a Yankee

Nixon was a thief.

Nixon stole the White House

With tricks beyond belief.

I went to Nixon's house

Nixon was afraid.

The House impeached the President

And indicted all his aides.

Limerick.

There was an old man in the House

Who had the morals of a louse.

When they asked "Was it you?"

He threw them Agnew.

That disloyal old person in the House.

A Crooked Man

There was a crooked man, And he ran a crooked race.

He placed a crooked bug in the Watergate place.

He had some crooked pals who covered for the louse,

And they all lived together in the crooked White House.

There was a crooked man, he was crooked but astute.

He had his crooked bagmen collect the crooked loot.

They took a crooked sixpence from the milkman's crooked stile.

To say nothing of his baby's million dollar smile.


 A Pox on Cox

A pox, a pox upon Archibald Cox

A man who stands as steady as rocks,

But he's better by far than Richard who nixes,

And nixes, and nixes, and doesn't pay taxes.

At the Watergate

Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean, where have all your associates been?

They've all been in Washington, creeping around the political scene.

Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean, what did they all there?

Oh, they just bugged the Democrat's Watergate lair.

What happened then, Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean?

The plot was uncovered, but we covered, re-covered, till then

Through the Washington Post and big Sam Ervin,

The story broke loose, so we stalled, and we lied,

We covered and covered, and we tried and we tried;

Till at last they were tried!

Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean, where have all your associates gone?

They've all gone to prison, till they sing a good song.

Toronto: Architectural walk

ublished: Globe & Mail, Toronto.

A seven-block walk of architectural whims

by Griffith Evans

Originally illustrated with six photographs by Globe & Mail photographer Dennis Robinson.

I wonder whether anyone else has an interesting walk to the subway as I do? Do people even notice? I must admit that the weather in winter inhibits observation. Most of the points of interest are well above eye level, and the biting wind tends to keep eyes firmly focused on the sidewalk. On the seven blocks I walk, along Yonge Street from Briar Hill to Eglinton, the roving eye can find at least half a dozen features of the older buildings that are a delight. No doubt others have their own favorites.
On the corner of St Clements Avenue stands the North Toronto YWCA. On the whole it is an unimpressive concrete building with large picture windows, usually filled with notices about activities for liberated mothers. However, if you let your eyes pass upward, the most amazing riot of art deco confronts you. Above each window is a large grey, metal panel about half as big as the window and covered with an intricate design of whorls and circles. As if this were not enough, High on the roof line, a magnificent eagle carries a two-sided clock – it is a solid squat bird with the faces of the clock rising up between its wings.
Farther down Yonge Street on the same side, the Capitol Cinema building stands on the corner of Castlefleld, here above the shop signs is a feature of some interest— fluted pilasters, venetian windows and some thin Adamesque designs. On the opposite side of Yonge, we find our next treasure -- and what a treasure, for me, it makes the whole walk worth it even on the coldest days. On the facade, up above the plastic and neon sign advertising Nino's pizza house, i s the full face -- stark white against the yellow-brown brick -- of a roaring lion. It is pleasingly framed In a line of white cornice.
Now back to the original side -- to Shaw's college, the one building that redeems this block. Shaw's has a plastered Spanish look, and you should notice in particular the rainpipes, and the boxes at the point that they disappear into the walls -- they are of a smart black against the creamy stucco of the building.
The next point of interest is the police station. The building itself is fairly dull -- grey stone with some Egyptian style ornament relieved with some yellow-grey brick. However, the light fixtures on the doors are worth a glance. I particularly liked the one on the door farthest north -- it has a delightful nineteen thirties touch.
Our next building for close examination is another gem of the nineteen thirties -- to be precise 1936 -- it must be one of the few buildings in the Commonwealth to display the insignia of King Edward VIII. This, of course, is the post office. In front of the main door stand two slim columns supporting stylized -- not my style I am afraid, I prefer that full blooded lion over Nino's -- Lion and Unicorn supporters of the Canadian and Quebec coats of arms. The real finds on this building are four small bas-reliefs high up on the building.
These represent four current modes of transportation -- on the front of the building, ship and rail; on the north side, a streamlined vehicle, a nd on the south side, best of all. a seaplane with fat squashy pontoons.
Farther on, the block from the post office down is gradually being engulfed with a rising vertical tide of development. On these new buildings, there are no bas-reliefs or odd decorations for tomorrow's walker to discover and enjoy.
Mr. Evans is a Toronto teacher.