bureaucracies, Groupthink

0 / 5. 0

bureaucracies, Groupthink

Category: Coursework

Subcategory: Sociology

Level: College

Pages: 2

Words: 550

Bureaucracies, Groupthink 0728302116
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Bureaucracies have become a daily norm when interacting with both public and private entities. As a customer of Apple, PayPal, and very many other companies, interacting with bureaucracies is ideally predictive. For instance, the last time this writer made payments using PayPal for an item on E-bay, this writer has to go through numerous processes just to lodge a complaint and for the company to track down the money spent on an undelivered good, which in hindsight could have been handled by just one staff member. The ordeal began when making a phone call, and in which the machine took approximately an hour to link this writer with the next agent who then asked a couple of questions to verify whether this writer’s personal information matches those he used when registering for the account. After that, the call was transferred to another operator, who subsequently made another transfer to another operator, who supposedly directly handles such complaints.
There are negative consequences that results from groupthink, and these are generally manifested by the lack of individual uniqueness, creativity, and free thoughts, which are sacrificed on the altar of group cohesiveness. Groupthink implies the decline in mental efficiency, moral judgments and reality examinations that result from a close-knit group pressure. Moreover, a negative consequence of the groupthink naturally occurs when there is a general tendency for a group to be in constant agreement with powerful and intimidating employers. Generally, the groupthink provides an overview of reasons why a group may be prone to poor decisions.
The student union seemingly exhibits the characteristics that Robert Michels described in the iron law of oligarchy prevailing in bureaucracies. According to the propositions spelled out by Robert, every organization, including organizations that are committed to democratic ethos must eventually succumb to oligarchy. Apparently, the iron law of oligarchy presupposes that organizational democracy is a paradox. Student leaders have been known to use underhand tactics to remain in such positions, or encourage their protégés to occupy certain preferred positions.
Groupthink can be prevented in bureaucracies through the different means that encourage the negative consequence to emerge. These could be harnessed through encouraging different knowledge, ideas and experiences in tackling common organizational concerns. Moreover, necessary steps must be taken to toned down on the overestimated morality and power of a group, encouraging open-mindedness, and reducing pressures that push different players within an organization to conform. Such bureaucracies must encourage suggestions, freedom and feedbacks from the others outside of the group, and dissenting voice from members of the organization. This is mainly to ostracize what is known as the illusion of unanimity.
Democracy even within bureaucracies can be the best tools when removing the iron law of oligarchy. Secondly horizontal management structure provides the best means of eliminating this problem and encourages varying individual contribution with bureaucratic organizations. Different factions existing within the bureaucracies can help in checking the existing excess that can occur when select members form the elite caucus of their own in bureaucracies. In the present world, the internet provides a number of media that can be used by the other members of the organization to prevent complete domination by the oligarchs in an organization. Blogs, social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Google +, YouTube, and amongst others can prove decisive in the creation of an oligarchy within bureaucracies.