Odd

I recently watched a movie entitled Odd Thomas¹ that depicted a person who was given the first name “Odd.” Mr. Thomas captured the essence of his first name in his behaviors; he claimed the ability to see dead people and demons and speak with ghosts. What was most striking about his peculiarity was how people around him reacted; people seemed to accept him, even the police. While he was different, strange, and perhaps weird, he became known for his talent to prevent disasters – they knew having him around was a benefit to the collective community and often saved lives.

While this was a silly movie and the critics were negative, the movie has many implications for leaders and organizational life; it is a metaphor for the anomalous yet talented worker whom leaders desperately need and want around. Yes, this person can be annoying and a pain, but as long as he or she is actively engaged in the business and exhibits strong critical thinking skills, everyone should applaud his/her presence – he or she is probably the best candidate to share with the leader exactly what he or she needs to hear.  

The acceptance of what is has been preached by scholars and practitioners. Jim Collins in Good to Great² claims that “good-to-great companies…infused the entire process [of decision-making] with the brutal facts of reality.”^{2 (p. 69)} He also cautions that reality can be unwittingly trumped by a leader who is strongly charismatic and shields followers from reality. In a study comparing Pitney Bowes to other organizations, Collins reveals that researchers found less optimal results when “…the top leader led with such force or instilled such fear that people worried more about the leader – what he would say, what he would think, what he would do – than they worried about external reality and what it would do to the company.” ^{2 (p. 72)} This was not the case at Pitney Bowes because the focus was on the external realities and not on the leader’s needs.

Further, Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan³ devoted an entire book, Confronting Reality, to the idea of seeking and understanding truth. “To confront reality is to recognize the world as it is, not as you wish it to be, and have the courage to do what must be done, not what you’d like to do.”^{3 (pp. 6-7)}  The authors add that it is natural and human to create a personal view of the world, primarily because it is easier and more comfortable. However, businesses don’t have this luxury because of the natural tendency toward decline and entropy.⁴

Having an Odd Thomas on the team can create a more open and pioneering enterprise and provide the necessary assistance to keep the organization grounded in reality. Also, the Groupthink research offers some valuable action items that leaders can draw on as a solution.

Groupthink is a negative response to being in a powerfully unified group. There have been notable historical examples where Groupthink led to poor decision-making, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, escalation of military action in Vietnam and other events.⁵ It evolves from the power of the group and the forces it exerts on its members. Groupthink occurs “when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.” ^{5 (p. 361)} According to Irving Janis, when a group has succumbed to Groupthink, some of the following indicators may be present:⁵

• The group may believe it cannot fail.
• The group may be overly defensive of decisions and fail to recognize red flags; it may push aside information that challenges the veracity of the decision.
• The group may see itself as good and right even when there are ethical issues to consider.
• Outsiders may be considered suspicious and/or ignorant.
• There may be implicit and/or explicit pressure to conform.
• Members may have a fear of being ostracized and, as a result, self-edit their comments in order to stay in the group’s good graces.
• They may believe the decision is unanimous even when there may be evidence of dissent.
• The group may succumb to the bias that new information is threatening and should be avoided.

When a group has fallen prey to Groupthink, there are ways to overcome some of the problems. For starters, a leader’s devotion to “critical inquiry,” which would include a review of “the pros and cons of [any] alternatives.”^{5 (p. 363)} The Janis Model also offers antidotes, and several are related to inserting an Odd Thomas into the equation:⁵

• Invite one or more outside experts to participate in the decision process; this can expose the group to different viewpoints.
• Appoint a member to play devil’s advocate.
• Require the leader to remain neutral during deliberations so as not to influence the conversation.

·         Make it acceptable for positive and negative views to be expressed.

Even when a group has not yielded to Groupthink, the outspoken odd thinker can play an important part in any decision by assuring different viewpoints are considered.

Other techniques that can supplement the above ideas:

• Require at least one person to argue against the consensus decision – an appointed odd thinker.
• Use techniques such as the nominal group technique that requires members to write down their views and read it to the group.

There are always going to be strange and odd people in organizations. If they are engaged and demonstrate critical thinking skills, they should be embraced rather than shunned. Groupthink research supports the notion of an Odd Thomas and offers action items that can prevent disastrous decisions. While some of the antidotes can make decisions more lengthy and difficult,⁵ it can also avert organizational disaster.

Feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Sommers, S. (Writer) (2013). Odd Thomas [Film]. In J. Baldacchi, H. Kaplan & S. Sommers (Producer). USA: Fusion Films, Future Films.

² Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins.

³ Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2004). Confronting Reality: Doing What Matters to Get Things Right. New York: Crown Business.

⁴ Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

⁵ Janis, I. (1995). Groupthink. In J.T. Wren (Ed.), Leader's Companion (pp. 360 - 373). New York: Free Press.