Article archive / March 1, 2014
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 7. Source pages: 2.
Recently the psychology board’s open-door closed a little. They noted on their website that the public is to submit concerns in writing via the U.S. mail, and that, “It is improper to contact Board members individually.” This is not all that unusual, since most boards warn their members not to speak to the public about board matters.
One reason for this, I’m told, is because the public is too stupid to understand the board member is speaking for themselves rather than as a mouthpiece for the regulatory body they serve. Is that sort of like the Pope speaking for God? I wonder if a short, one-sentence warning could help? Something like, “I’m not speaking for the board.”
Board members volunteer a lot of time and effort, so it’s probably a hassle to be pestered by people. Maybe it’s hard to be assertive and say, “Leave me alone.” So there is that.
Of course a good reason one might want to restrict communication is to avoid risk. Chair Dr. Culross said in her newsletter address that they had consulted their attorney about the issue, which gives us a clue.
The attorney sub-culture has interesting social norms. Since they participate in an adversarial (“Let’s fight!”) social system, their focus on offense and defense characterizes their approach, often portrayed in our– –the larger social system––humor.
• What is 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A pretty good start.
• What’s the difference between a lawyer and a leech? After you die, the leech stops sucking your blood.
• Why do psychologists use attorneys in their experiments instead of rats? There are some things rats just won’t do.”
While avoiding risks is one valid goal, there are invisible costs to that choice, and also important benefits of other goals to be considered. A direct result of restricting and delaying communication is the impact on a group’s information bias. This is the source of groupthink, but also, when not quite that dramatic, it is the source of limitations in the quality of decisions. Reducing both upwards and downwards information exchange, and installing a nasty time-delay, will likely reduce the quality of group decisions.
The board’s move also appears to accentuate issues of status and power, which is not all that desirable if you’re striving for a high- functioning team or group.
Then there is the impact on participation, which is already extremely low in our community. A good time for choosing a high engagement, participative leadership style is when you realize that much of what you are hoping to influence is really going on beneath the surface, where you can’t see it or change it.
I remember when this theoretical idea hit me in practical, concrete terms. I was consulting in a petrochemical plant. Some Theory X manager was stomping around, being a jackass, and talking down to the men who reported to him. One of these men said to me, “It’s as if he doesn’t understand that all I have to do is put a teaspoon full of a certain chemical in the system, and we’ll be shut down for a week.”
Openness and participation are harder, it takes more effort, it may even be riskier in some ways, but free exchange of information will support our community better when it comes to our very highest ideals.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.