When I was academia, a long, long time ago, I taught a class on Group Dynamics. We investigated the structure and process of communication within groups. Here are a few things we observed and which may be applicable here.
1) In any group there are the ones being influencing and the ones who will be influenced. The general tendency with the ones influencing is to speak early and often. In the long run we found, those who spoke in the first three communication acts tended to be the ones who, in the long run, attempted more acts of persuasion (as verses informational, humorous, and social communications). Thus, speaking first on any subject is a good idea if you have an opinion and are desirous of influencing the group.
2) A second thing we studied is how those first communications often set the group norms. The "normal" attitude, method of confrontation, and so on were set early in the group. So if the initial responder didn't like the opinion of the guest speaker, his/her response signaled to the others in the group the expected response. The reason the first response has such influence is that in general humans think early public responses by leaders are the "official" view...i.e. the view of the group. So the leader said it and therefore I now know how I'm supposed to feel about it.
3) While the first two of these seem to say the influenced are just sheep, it is more complex than that. Sometimes a historically high status member challenges the initial response of the group, but if he/she does so it is usually from the basis of reasoning and evidence rather than simple emotion. While he/she can say, "I disagree," all that is occuring is his/her summation of his/her thoughts and feelings are being stacked up against the first speakers summation of his/her thoughts. At that point is a battle of wills rather than reasons. In groups the higher status members get a bit of leeway from the norms and can change them to some degree but to do so once those norms have been set takes more than "I don't feel that way." So if the initial response says the guest speaker's ideas are "stupid," that's the status quo for the group. Any challenge to the summation must be carefully presented. If the one disagreeing simply states his/her disagreement without laying out some reasoning the whole thing tends to become a struggle between two personalities rather than a discussion of the matter at hand.
4) A fourth idea we watched in groups was the flow of information. Generally speaking the high status members directed their comments at each other and let the others be observers. When this happened most of the time those "lower status" members were like sheep more than contributing members. But they weren't entirely that way. Often their responses were delivered in private. They would approach the high status member in private to get clarification etc.
5) The process and structure of a group, we found, could constantly change. It usually didn't unless one or more of the leaders was absent, or said something very much against the group norms. But before that happened that leader had his/her "leadership credit" whereby they were given the benefit of the doubt to some degree or other.
6) Not every good idea came from the high status individuals. But if the idea was actually considered it had to be championed by one of the higher status members. If a low status member made a suggestion or presented an idea, if a high status person didn't speak up immediately, the idea went by the wayside. Often, later, the same idea got it's "day in court" but only if a high status person presented it. In fact, often, in recalling the source of the idea, no one remembered the one who actually introduced it and credit was given to the higher status individual...who himself may not have remembered it being presented by the low status member.
All of this, in this forum, tells us some of the pitfalls of speaking up. The responses of the audience, if they are knee-jerk, short, and obviously passionate, can set a negative tone as well as a positive. Unfortunately, though, we tend to be more resistant to new ideas than enthusiastic about things with which we already agree. So the negative side in thing is usually the first thing to be expressed.
In addition, when we express our opinion in short, emotive language, we are usually presenting a summation of a what we think. Saying "he's stupid" is a summation of the stupid acts and words of the one to whom one is referring. Unfortunately, leaders tend to do this with the assumption that because they are in a place of at least social authority, they need not explain themselves. But, as they sometimes find out, "their passion does not equal my persuasion." You can be as passionate as you like, it's your right to be passionate, but you shouldn't expect the summation of how you got to the point of feeling as you do, to be a replacement for an explanation of why you feel as you do. You may think the guy stupid, but my experience with him may be other than yours.
And finally, just because somebody you admire or who has influence in the group, sums up their feelings (and in doing so implies all should feel the same), doesn't mean you should be influenced by their summation. Ask for why the leader believes/feels as he/she does.
That's it for now.
AJ
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
