In her recent letter to The T&D titled “Start with conversation about race,” Susan Till, Ph.D., of Neeses, suggests that in order to build community we should begin with a discussion on race.

 

Her position is a popular one, but it may miss a very important aspect of the overall concept of “community,” which itself is defined more by “culture” than by “race.”

 

Our growing “program mentality” strongly supports the idea that a plethora of programs be established to address every nuance of sensitivity under the sun. A number of them deal specifically with the issue of race and identity.

 

While many of these programs may have begun as attempts to foster in-group cohesion, we must begin to examine the idea that many “single-identity organizations” and “mandated ethnic observances” may unduly force many minorities into a box of like-minded individuals who are isolated from the reality around them.

 

Mind you, as a person of Native American heritage I write this from a very personal perspective, as I have participated in and presented at many of these events. But I find many aspects of them to be more destructive than beneficial.

 

We all understand the encompassing concept behind these types of programs. In the psychological community, it is widely accepted that in any sort of group setting, it is imperative to foster at least some degree of cohesion among group members.

 

Cohesion builds confidence among members of the group. They begin to trust one another and begin to perceive positive illusions about themselves, allowing them to increase their own (group) commitment to group tasks.

 

But positive illusions can have serious drawbacks as well.

 

Any unwarranted sense of self esteem, with no “personal inventory” to back it up, only serves to place many individuals into situations that can overwhelm them.

‘Groupthink’

Unwarranted positive illusions can affect not only individuals but groups as well.

Just as an individual has a personality, so too does a group. We call a group’s personality its “culture.”

Any group culture that grants unwarranted positive illusions to group members causes the group’s ego to become overinflated. In essence, the group becomes more and more arrogant and begins to take more and more credit for perceived successes.

 

Even more important, group cohesion can become so high that group members begin to dismiss group failures as “someone else’s fault” because the group begins to see itself as flawless.

In group settings, we call this “groupthink,” and it can be devastating to group performance.

 

As groupthink sets in, group members see themselves as “flawless” and superior to all other groups. They begin to grant even more credit to their “cohesion,” which they see as predictable: “What else would we be but flawless, we’re perfect.”

 

As an example, Dr. Till questions why the population of public schools in Orangeburg is 90 percent black while the population of private schools in 95 percent white.

 

While I think the question is a legitimate one to examine, its simple application may neglect to consider that the factors involved may be “cultural” rather than “racial.” That is, some parents may be sending their children to one school based on “accomplishment” rather than staying behind in the other school complaining about “identity.”

Accomplishment vs. identity

Perceiving group flawlessness causes group members to perceive all of their decisions as perfect. And if their decisions are perfect, any dissent from those group decisions is chastised.

The culture of many such groups places the importance of “identity” over that of “accomplishment.” In doing so, any out-group member (a person not of the group’s identity) will often be considered a “less than.” In essence, high-group cohesion can cause group members to disassociate with out-group members. Indeed, elevated levels of group and identity recognition, by definition, exist in direct opposition to diversity.

A focus on “identity” rather than “accomplishment” causes group members to congregate and identify only with members of their in-group, further exacerbating groupthink. As a result, group members discuss the same tired-old issues over and over again.

 

Whereas, “outside” opinions that don’t fit group norms are disallowed, the group acquires a sort of group “tunnel vision,” seeing things from only one perspective.

 

If a group member happens to disagree with a group decision, he or she is considered an outcast and severely admonished (many of the responses to this article will prove my point). But even worse, inflated group cohesion and sense of group “togetherness” (which in fact is the admitted purpose of most groups) causes individual members to cross the boundaries of their own, individual ethics.

 

Their own ethics and decision making takes a back seat as they place group cohesion above their own individuality. If an individual member begins to feel like he or she thinks differently than the group, that individual member is very likely not to speak up for fear of being ostracized. “Being a part of the group” and “group identity” becomes more important than their own, individual liberty.

 

Forms of groupthink can be beneficial in a military-type environment, where there is an urgent need to strictly follow orders, and quickly. But it can be devastating to civilian law and order. This is precisely why “groups” and “teams” in the workplace very seldom perform to their full potential.

Individualist vs. Collectivist cultures

Much of this can be explained by the differences in the two primary types of world cultures. One is the Individualist culture, which places importance on individual accomplishment, work ethic, and liberty. The other is the Collectivist culture, which places group identity, well-being and status quo above that of the individual.

I applaud Dr. Till’s call for a discussion on race. Perhaps our first order of business should be to seriously examine single-identity focus groups. We may find that they inappropriately focus on “identity” rather than individual “accomplishment.”

 

Secondly, we might question if it is really race at all that needs to be examined. Perhaps a better address would be to acknowledge the presence of two distinct cultures in America: one, which values Individualism (achievement), and another, which values Collectivism (identity).

Keith Pounds holds an M.B.A. with a concentration in organizational psychology. He is the author of the books “A Concise Encyclopedia of the Choctaw Indians” and the soon-to-be-released “The Psychology of Management.”

You must be logged in to comment.