Following the victory of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), supporters were unanimous in their celebration. While the Ma camp neared a point of celebratory delirium, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) finally said that someone had to be the gadfly. Unfortunately, Hu was only gadfly for a day. While gadflies are generally detested, their absence could be the source of disaster.
The gadfly is reminiscent of US psychologist Irving Janis’ theory of “groupthink.” According to him, groupthink is most likely to occur when a group has a highly unified membership, high solidarity and a shared desire for harmony.
Under these circumstances, if no one steps forward to become the gadfly, decisions made by the group could be dangerous — especially under time constraints.
Janis’s theory of groupthink was derived from the analysis of various diplomatic incidents in US history.
Unsuccessful incidents included the escalation of the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs invasion and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, during the terms of US presidents Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt respectively, to which we could add US President George W. Bush’s terrible fix: the Iraqi invasion and its failure to discover weapons of mass destruction.
Some would attribute the mistakes of US intelligence to groupthink. These flawed decisions were not caused by unqualified personnel. Indeed, those involved in the decision process were the nation’s elite. How could these situations have occurred?
Janis found that when a decision-making group is overly confident and optimistic, it leans toward the belief that decisions made by the group are just, while neglecting potential dangers and warnings, as well as moral challenges.
The group will attack anyone who questions its plans or position, although its attacks are not always based on evidence, but rather on ridicule.
In addition, this kind of group also has a tendency toward mass rationalization and to disregard challenges from the outside. Even when members have doubts, they often repress them in the belief that they have no authority to question the decision or wisdom of the majority, and consequently ignore their misgivings.
At the same time, certain members of the group intentionally play the role of gatekeeper, suppressing or concealing data that run counter to the group strategy in order to protect its legitimacy. The result of this kind of group pressure and self-repression is an apparent uniformity of opinion and the rationalization of group decisions.
Because of a lack of diverse opinions, the group is unable to comprehensively consider alternative options, collect relevant information or accurately determine the risk inherent in a chosen course of action, leading to the rationalization of ridiculous and immoral actions that ultimately result in erroneous policies.
It is not difficult to avoid the pitfalls of groupthink: All that is required is a gadfly. At the same time, leaders should encourage group members to propose opposing opinions and voice doubts. Before a decision is reached, it is best to invite consultants from outside the group and request that they challenge group views.
Hopefully, after Ma’s inauguration next month, there will be people willing to play the gadfly in his camp. Otherwise, it could unwittingly sink into the trap of groupthink.
Hawang Shiow-duan is chair of the Taipei Society and a professor of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Angela Hong
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS