Arbitration & Mediation

Kagan and the Magic Number Three

By Victoria Pynchon

More important than her religious background (Jewish) her Ivy League Credentials (Harvard) her progressive, liberal or conservative Democrat political leanings, is the prospect that Kagan's addition to the Supreme Court will result in the magic number of three women on the United States Supreme Court. 

(as Paul Simon sings, "every generation throws a hero up the pop charts." It's also a truism that every generation has its cultural, social and political project.  For the present generation of young adults, that project is saving the human species on the planet - the planet itself will do just fine without us (see Gaia - we are simply the planet's spokesmodels).  This photo, however, gives us aging activist boomers something to be proud of - the astonishing beneficial results of the Great Civil Rights Movements of the last half of the twentieth century). 

Why is three the magic number?

Recent studies have shown that it takes three women corporate board members to avoid the deliterious effects of group think on corporate decision making - my own supposition on the question "why three" being that one or two women easily risk falling into male group-think.  This isn't male bashing, by the way. I assume three men on an otherwise all woman's board would have a similar performance enhancing effect.  

Because group-think is the enemy of negotiated resolutions on every scale, here's a list of its symptoms to help you diagnose whether your law firm; litigation team; in-house legal department; corporate board; non-profit; political party; or, even your extended family might be the victim of group think.

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of 'enemy' make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group's views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards' – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group's cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
   

When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so.  Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision.  When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them.  These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity.  Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

From What is Groupthink  at the Psychologists for Social Responsibility site.

Full post as published by Settle It Now Negotiation Blog on May 11, 2010 (boomark / email).