B.C. NDP groupthink puts MLA Jenny Kwan in a difficult position

    1 of 2 2 of 2

      In 1972, social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term “groupthink”. It describes how people in a group make poor decisions because the “members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”.

      According to Janis, when this occurs the group’s mental efficiency deteriorates; alternatives are ignored; and irrational actions are taken that dehumanize other groups.

      Some of the characteristics are an illusion of invulnerability, where the group is excessively optimistic, leading them to take extreme risks. A collective rationalization sets in, which leads members to discount warnings.

      Janis also noted that in the throes of groupthink, members believe in the rightness of their cause, and ignore the ethical or moral consequences of decisions.

      Direct pressure comes down on dissenters, who are discouraged from putting forth arguments that don’t sit well with the group. This leads to self-censorship and an illusion of unanimity. Members protect the group and the leader from information that contradicts the group’s cohesiveness.

      Is this starting to sound like the B.C. NDP under Carole James’s leadership?

      This afternoon (December 5), the longest-serving member of caucus, Vancouver-Mount Pleasant MLA Jenny Kwan, will face the consequences of her behaviour at an NDP caucus meeting in Vancouver.

      This will occur because Kwan and 12 other members of caucus (there are 14 if you include Bob Simpson) didn’t conform to the group’s belief that the best course of action was to go into the next election without first holding a leadership convention.

      Like many whistle blowers, the dissenters tried to make their case internally. They went to James with a letter and attempted to engage in a confidential discussion. It blew up in their faces when their views were rejected out of hand.

      One dissenter quit as caucus chair and another dissenter quit as the party whip.

      Later, they were publicly shamed at the NDP provincial council meeting. That's when the members of the group—in full view of the media—wore yellow scarfs to indicate their support for James.

      It’s not uncommon for organizations to try to crush whistle blowers.

      “Some whistle-blowing episodes start internally and escalate until, as voices rise in discordance, they are heard outside,” SFU professor Mark Wexler writes in his textbook Confronting Moral Worlds: Understanding Business Ethics. “In others, the whistle-blower sees that the organizational culture is not supportive of dissent and thus whistle-blowing may move to, say, the media or a professional association before it is fully appreciated by the powers within the organization. In both internal and external instances, the distinction between a complaint and whistle-blowing rests on the fact that in the former there is no effort made to use 'public shaming’ or the involvement of third parties to pull the perceived wrongdoer into line (bold-faced added).”

      On December 3, former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey was one of these third parties trying to bring the dissenters into line, saying they had a choice to support the leader or leave.

      Whistle-blowing event is the trigger

      Wexler writes that the first stage in the process is a “whistle-blowing event”, which is the trigger. The leader's banishment of Simpson without a caucus meeting may have met this standard because it violated the norm for dealing with a situation like this.

      “The event, in the eyes of the whistle blower, is an act of wrongdoing committed by those in the organization that benefit at the expense of others,” Wexler notes.

      The whistle blower is appalled by the triggering event, but lacks power on his or her own to rectify the situation. Wexler emphasizes that the whistle blower often fails to have a full understanding of the forces lurking beneath the surface.

      The next stage is making a decision to "pull the trigger", as Wexler puts it, and publicly voicing concerns. Many remain silent at this point, fearing for their careers.

      Stage three involves taking action. There are numerous choices at this point. Does the group go public or have an individual make the case?

      In their internal efforts, the NDP dissenters approached James as a group. That failed.

      When it came time to go public, a decision was made to put forth Kwan as an individual. The downside of this approach, Wexler notes, is that the organization may try to frame this as a “psychological idiosyncrasy”.

      NDP MLA John Horgan, for instance, characterized Kwan’s actions as “childish”.

      There is also a choice to blow the whistle internally or externally. Another decision involves doing it anonymously or publicly.

      “Making one’s identity known in the act of whistle-blowing lends a sense of principled dissent and clarity of motive to one’s behaviour,” Wexler writes.

      The next stage in the process is assessing the reactions of others. And the whistle blower must be prepared for a vicious response from the organization.

      “Essentially, the strategy is to plant in the public record a red flag regarding the character and thereby credibility of the whistle-blower,” Wexler states. “The tacit or unspoken question is whether or not this self-nominated whistle-blower is a trustworthy interpreter of complex events.”

      The appropriate response for the whistle blower, Wexler advises, is to stick to the facts and not battle the character innuendos, which loosens the person’s focus.

      ”The neutralizers recognize this potential countermeasure and often seek to isolate the whistle-blower,” he adds. “This second strategy emphasizes taking the whistle-blower out of contact with potential allies.”

      Moreover, those who are sympathetic to the whistle blower may also find themselves demoted or dismissed.

      One of the dangers for the organization is making a martyr out of a defeated whistle blower, according to Wexler's book. That’s because punishing the dissenter can lead to a public backlash. The martyr can become a rallying point for future generations who seek to protest.

      Today, the NDP caucus has a choice. Do the NDP MLAs really want to make a martyr of Kwan? Or do they discard their groupthink and try to resolve this situation in a constructive manner, even if it necessitates the resignation of James as leader?

      Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.

      Comments

      35 Comments

      Shepsil

      Dec 5, 2010 at 9:44am

      Talk about grasping at straws. First it was, BCNDP Leadership is dictatorial and won't listen to the grassroots of the party, now its group think. Tomorrow it will be that Jenny Kwan is actually the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher.

      Bottom line is that NDP members have to decide what will be done with those MLAs who don't want to tow the party line. Obviously, dissension in Caucus needs to be dealt with. There is an election looming, likely sooner than later, we need to get our house in order so that we can fight that election and win. Even if we did have a new leader, there would still be issues and disagreements. Its best to ignore the pundits and do whatever needs to be done.

      Clive

      Dec 5, 2010 at 9:46am

      The NDP under Carole "barnacle" James has been driving around for some time with bald tires and they can't get any traction. They should have made her walk the plank after losing the election a second time. Time for a change; time to oust the corrupt BC Liberals.

      Martin Spacek

      Dec 5, 2010 at 9:53am

      Applies equally well to all the events regarding Julien Assange and WIkiLeaks this past week.

      Roland van Kaauwen

      Dec 5, 2010 at 10:01am

      Carole James should be ashamed of the way she handled this situation, she could have been on top of the leadership issue and simply put the whole thing to a vote as members in her party felt was necessary. She handled this issue like Gordo has handled all issues in the past, irresponsibly and stubbornly. Members of a party or group or organization have the right and responsibility to question their leader, they have the obligation to ensure that their leader is the right person to go to the polls with and if that person is not then the right person needs to placed into that position. Kwans alliance did it all the right way, they approached James confidentially and were snubbed and then publicly and they were snubbed. Who do you think you are miss James... Gordon Campbell??

      Roland van Kaauwen

      Dec 5, 2010 at 10:11am

      The reasons these problems keep coming up in our political parties is because the parties force their members to "tow the party line". MLA's and MP's alike are supposed to be in legislature or parliament for their constituents beliefs and not the beliefs of a few high ranking members of a party system, that's not democracy, that's dictatorship.
      The party system is supposed to allow members who have similar ideas to band together under a common flag or banner. However this does not mean that they be forced to do the bidding of the one holding the banner, it's designed so that they are more easily recognizable to the public as to what stance or beliefs they generally have. Carole James would be wise to allow her members to vote on a leadership bid and in the future vote for what their constituents want not what the party brass wants. Government should be run by the will of the people not the will of the person.

      Strong New Democrat

      Dec 5, 2010 at 10:16am

      Whistle blowers usually have something important to reveal. Jenny's complaints don't meet the test. Carole didn't do everything Jenny wanted and therefore democracy must be ignored? Any group with over 30 people in it will have someone feeling marginalized. For this you blow up the party and any chances at winning? She is acting like a child who didnt get their own way and is now crying to mommy or in this case the press. Shame on her and if you think shaming in this instance is wrong then why do you continually Shame Carole James for being guilty of not being popular enough (in your view) at this time? Stop the double standards - I suspect you are just Liberals stirring the pot anyway.

      Kirby

      Dec 5, 2010 at 10:42am

      Why on earth would they think that a leader ship vote is not needed, it should be mandatory! (NDP MLA John Horgan, for instance, characterized Kwan’s actions as “childish”).
      I really hate this kind of comment! What if you don't agree you should shut up. The NDP have got to be better than this, Kwan and the others are right!

      Tony Bruno

      Dec 5, 2010 at 10:43am

      Care James is completely incompetent and needs to resign ASAP. The way she has done nothing productive in the past 7 years and the way she handled these MLAs that tried to resolve this privately with her (and she exposed them and tried to shame them) shows what kind of person she is.

      Go home and wash the dishes, Carol. And take your scarfs with you.

      Strong New Democrat

      Dec 5, 2010 at 11:24am

      Tony you just outed yourself as the misogenist you obviously are. go home and do the dishes? Dishes and scarves. Wow the pundit spins are working overtime. And people think women have attained equality!

      Not until strength is recognized ad defined in both female and male terms.

      LGM

      Dec 5, 2010 at 11:27am

      A great point about 'group think', Charlie. It amazes me that the idea of kicking out the dissenting MLA's is even contemplated! Stuart Kennedy was on TV saying they may all have to go! That is just crazy.

      The best thing for the party, at this point, is a leadership convention and the benefits that will accrue from that such as renewed memberships and enthusiasm, plus a face-saving vehicle to mend differences when it's over. Also, Carole James may run and win that race which gives her the authority she now lacks. Just do it guickly!