Ethics Encourages Groupthink or a Herd Mentality - Research Paper Example

Ethics encourages groupthink Name Institution Introduction Ethics is more similar to nutrition. It is an essential aspect in people’s daily living. Individuals do always find it hard to avoid confronting ethical problems since behaving in a manner that affect a person’s wellbeing is very hard to avoid (Hinman, 2007). Individuals normally try so hard to be ethical so as to behave in manner in which a particular group or culture is impressed with. Therefore, having ethics among individuals simply implies following a particular social, religious or civil code of behavior that is considered correct among groups. It is through this understanding of ethics that it is believed that ethics encourages groupthink. Therefore, this paper seeks to evaluate the allegation that ethics encourages groupthink that promotes mediocrity or weakness by demanding individuals to conform to similar codes, rules and principles. Panza and Potthast (2010) argue that several critics believe that ethics is fairly biased. Its biasness promotes group think that rewards mediocrity and weakness. According to Panza and Potthast (2010), a number of critics believe that instead of evenly portraying what every person need to do from a disinterested viewpoint, ethics do always portray what particular powerful groups would like each member to behave. Therefore, ethics is viewed as being biased since, as it promotes the interests of particular groups, it equally marginalizes the interests of the groups that are less powerful. Many philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, a 19th century German philosopher, believe that individuals need to be independent on their decision making. Nietzsche believes that commitment to personal integrity requires staying a life that targets attainment of power and displaying of inner strength. Therefore, in order to attain this, individuals need to passionately struggle to live an independent life. The need for independency is well illustrated in subjectivism theory. According to subjectivism theory, ethics is all about the opinion of each person. The theory states that ethical statements are simply statements of individual view and nothing more. However, in case the ethical statements are simply statements of individual view, then ethical disagreements that targets ethical truth are really senseless. Therefore, subjectivism simply attempts to entail the idea that what is good or bad can vary from person to person. In case a person’s view is equally considered and ethics is simply based on the view, then there is no need to argue about the opinion (Panza & Potthast, 2010). The theory therefore illustrates that it is not obvious that the group opinion will concur with that of each group member. The group’s ethical rules, codes and principles that a person needs to adhere to might be misleading and since the group’s ethics requires all members to concur with its opinion, regardless of their personal opinions, the group members will have no option than to follow the misleading rules, codes and principles. This therefore encourages groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness. An independent successful living needs spinning personal interpretation of life and handling of more current and wide experiences that challenges a person’s interpretation. An individual can then utilize the challenges to come up with an excellent unique interpretation of life (Panza and Potthast, 2010). However, according to Nietzsche, traditional ethics does not give enough room for this kind of independency. Instead of informing individuals to search and develop their own interpretation of life, ethics promotes groupthink or herd mentality that rewards mediocrity and weakness by expecting every person to conform to similar codes, rules and principles. In simple terms, the rules of ethics promote conformity to particular interpretation of life as developed by the groups. Ukleja and Stone (2009) claims that independency discourages groupthink that rewards mediocrity, that is, the careless behavior of leaving the group to think on behalf of every group member. Many philosophers observe traditional ethics as a serious problem that can be internalized in a person’s life. Ethical rules do always dictate on how a person needs to behave. In order to be ethical, individuals are normally expected to conform to particular rules, codes and principles that the group or culture considers being right. Individuals therefore, regardless of their right personal opinion, are normally forced to follow the group decision so as to conform to ethical rules, codes and principles. Ethics normally makes a person to act in a manner that collectively impresses the masses while ignoring his or her personal feeling about the situation. This therefore normally promotes groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness. Sims R. (2003) argues that the flaws, brought about by ethics, in groupthink decision-making process normally result into many types of ethical decision-making defects such as little ethical options perceived, absence of reviewing preferred unethical options and rejection of dissenting alternatives. Groupthink simply refers to wrong decision making within a group. It is a way of making decision as a group in a manner that discourages individual responsibility or creativity. Therefore by following ethical rules, it is very easy for a group to involve in groupthink since individual’s good opinions in this case are normally ignored and every member forced to conform to group’s bad decision that falls within the ethical rules or principles. Panza and Potthast (2010) argue that life of integrity lies beyond good and wrong and individuals need to be given a chance to independently make a wide variety of decisions without basing on ethical rules, codes and principles. Therefore, in order to avoid groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness, various alternative opinions of group members that do not concur with the ethical rules, codes and principles of the group need to be looked upon and integrated in the final decision of the group. Janis (1991) highlights that groupthink represents a very strong form of agreement-seeking among individuals of high status or among individuals belonging to a firmly knit policy-making group. The concurrence is very strong to an extent that the members of the group do always value the group more than their personal views or opinions. This therefore usually forces the group members to struggle for fast and painless harmony on matters that the group has to face. In order to maintain clubby atmosphere, members of the group do always repress individual doubts, calm dissenters and follow the ideas of the group leader. Group leaders usually have a powerful belief in inherent ethics of the group. The outcomes are usually devastating, that is, distorted view of facts, very strong hopefulness of producing quick and irresponsible policies and neglect of essential ethical issues (Choi & Kim, 1999). Ethics dictates a person’s integrity. Group members are normally forced to think as a group even if the direction taken by the group is wrong. They are expected to strictly adhere to stipulated ethical codes or principles. Strict adherences to these impersonal and general codes or principles do always compromise a person’s integrity (Panza and Potthast, 2010). Individuals normally ignore their integrity and instead adhere to the group’s integrity. Ethics therefore do always act as a guidebook that directs how group members are supposed to behave. The codes, rules and principles utilized in ethics are normally meant to equally apply to every person, regardless of their personality, nature or condition. Ethics therefore, by detecting a person’s integrity, promotes groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness. Groupthink can also be viewed as a type of thinking that individuals do always involved in when participating in a unified, tasked-centered group and when the individual’s requirement for unanimity surpasses the requirement to develop a decision that is based on coherent information (Price, 2006). The Ethical requirement that demands each group member to follow the rules, codes and principles of the group do always result to bad judgments and decisions. Ethics do also make the group to make rationalized bad decision after the truth. Ethics therefore do encourage groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness. The encouraged groupthink is normally a simple and totally a non-satisfactory way of dealing with complex issues (Shine consulting, 2010). Even though ethics encourages groupthink, it can also be argued that ethics discourages groupthink. According to Johnson (2011), organizations usually establish self managed teams whereby employees are to work in self-directed team or self-managed groups. In this particular group’s decision are made through the contribution of each individual member. However the followers have to meet the ethical obligation to complete their task as per the stipulated objectives of the organization. In this context, Johnson (2011) therefore argues that all though the group members are provided with the chance to make decisions as a group the code of conduct in the organization has to be followed as a result, ethics overrides groupthink. Barsky (2009) highlights, that clarity of ethics can also discourage groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness. This can be done through assigning some or all of the group members the duty of a being a critical evaluator, whose role is to raise questions, doubts or dissent in the decisions made by the group. The presence of critical evaluator can greatly discourage groupthink, for instance, in the scenario whereby when one or two followers of the group express a particular view point and other followers tend to agree without raising oppositions. The critical evaluator plays the role of raising deviating opinions. Conclusion From the discussion, it is clear that ethics encourages groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness by demanding individuals to conform to similar codes, rules and principles. Ethics is fairly biased. Its biasness promotes group think that rewards mediocrity and weakness. Ethics dictates a person’s behavior. . In order to be ethical, individuals are normally expected to conform to particular rules, codes and principles that the group or culture considers being right. Ethics dictates a person’s integrity. Group members are normally forced to think as a group even if the direction taken by the group is wrong. They are expected to strictly adhere to stipulated ethical codes or principles, thus compromising their integrity. References Hinman, L. (2007). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. London: Cengage Learning. Panza, C., & Potthast, A. (2010). Ethics for Dummies. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Janis’ L. I. (1991). Victims of Groupthink. Amsterdam: University of Leiden Choi, N. J., & Kim, M. (1999). The Organizational Application of Groupthink and Its Limitations in Organizations. Journal of applied psychology, 2 (84). Pg 297-306 Shine consulting (2010). Beware of group think. Retrieved from 20th Feb 2012 Johnson, C. E. (2011). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light Or Shadow. New york: SAGE. Barsky, A.E. (2009). Ethics and Values in Social Work: An Integrated Approach for a Comprehensive Curriculum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Price L. T. (2006). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sims R. (2003). Ethics and corporate social responsibility: why giants fall. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Ukleja, M. & Stone, B. (2009). The Ethics Challenge: Strengthening Your Integrity in a Greedy World. New York: Wordclay. Read More

Therefore, subjectivism simply attempts to entail the idea that what is good or bad can vary from person to person. In case a person’s view is equally considered and ethics is simply based on the view, then there is no need to argue about the opinion (Panza & Potthast, 2010). The theory therefore illustrates that it is not obvious that the group opinion will concur with that of each group member. The group’s ethical rules, codes and principles that a person needs to adhere to might be misleading and since the group’s ethics requires all members to concur with its opinion, regardless of their personal opinions, the group members will have no option than to follow the misleading rules, codes and principles.

This therefore encourages groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness. An independent successful living needs spinning personal interpretation of life and handling of more current and wide experiences that challenges a person’s interpretation. An individual can then utilize the challenges to come up with an excellent unique interpretation of life (Panza and Potthast, 2010). However, according to Nietzsche, traditional ethics does not give enough room for this kind of independency. Instead of informing individuals to search and develop their own interpretation of life, ethics promotes groupthink or herd mentality that rewards mediocrity and weakness by expecting every person to conform to similar codes, rules and principles.

In simple terms, the rules of ethics promote conformity to particular interpretation of life as developed by the groups. Ukleja and Stone (2009) claims that independency discourages groupthink that rewards mediocrity, that is, the careless behavior of leaving the group to think on behalf of every group member. Many philosophers observe traditional ethics as a serious problem that can be internalized in a person’s life. Ethical rules do always dictate on how a person needs to behave. In order to be ethical, individuals are normally expected to conform to particular rules, codes and principles that the group or culture considers being right.

Individuals therefore, regardless of their right personal opinion, are normally forced to follow the group decision so as to conform to ethical rules, codes and principles. Ethics normally makes a person to act in a manner that collectively impresses the masses while ignoring his or her personal feeling about the situation. This therefore normally promotes groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness. Sims R. (2003) argues that the flaws, brought about by ethics, in groupthink decision-making process normally result into many types of ethical decision-making defects such as little ethical options perceived, absence of reviewing preferred unethical options and rejection of dissenting alternatives.

Groupthink simply refers to wrong decision making within a group. It is a way of making decision as a group in a manner that discourages individual responsibility or creativity. Therefore by following ethical rules, it is very easy for a group to involve in groupthink since individual’s good opinions in this case are normally ignored and every member forced to conform to group’s bad decision that falls within the ethical rules or principles. Panza and Potthast (2010) argue that life of integrity lies beyond good and wrong and individuals need to be given a chance to independently make a wide variety of decisions without basing on ethical rules, codes and principles.

Therefore, in order to avoid groupthink that rewards mediocrity and weakness, various alternative opinions of group members that do not concur with the ethical rules, codes and principles of the group need to be looked upon and integrated in the final decision of the group. Janis (1991) highlights that groupthink represents a very strong form of agreement-seeking among individuals of high status or among individuals belonging to a firmly knit policy-making group. The concurrence is very strong to an extent that the members of the group do always value the group more than their personal views or opinions.

Read More