eZiNFOmgmt

My county commissioners have raised the ire of many by firing the industrial development board.  Ostensibly, it’s over money, money the commission needs to balance its budget.  The board believes its members were fired illegally.  The commission believes the board was withholding “profits” from the sale of land.  An audit shows available “profits” in similar amounts as offered by the board to the commission—refused by the commission because it wasn’t enough.  The commission thinks the audit was tainted. Lawsuits by the commission against individual board members make the issue personal for public servants who have contributed freely to the county’s welfare.  It’s ugly.

Annoyed? Confused? Frustrated? I am.

The underlying issue is how both bodies perform.  Was the board doing its job?  Is the commission doing right? 

It’s important to rule out what is not a problem.  It’s not a problem with motive, personal or group abilities, fraud, deception, or corruption.  To a person, the members of both groups are highly respected, capable citizens intent upon doing what is right for the community.  (Ok, they’re just people, and they do have the normal ranges of personal objectives, biases, and psychological needs.  They are our peers, not better than the rest of us.  Remember that.)

The most obvious problem is the lack of communications.  (Every problem-solving group identifies this as an issue!)  The real problem is that neither group has ever tackled the policy issues of the communications that are needed.  Consequently, both groups make up rules as they go.  Doesn’t work.

The second obvious problem, “Groupthink,” couples with the first and magnifies its effects.  It’s a common, well-diagnosed problem in groups of more than 12 people.  It is predictable. And, it is treatable.  Here are some of the signs of groupthink among the county commissioners:

• Over confidence in their abilities.  Some people call this arrogance.  Why else would a commission attempt to argue law with an experience attorney?
• Discrediting of warnings.  A pact of commissions has steadfastly discredited the warnings from multiple attorneys and from their own members.
• Illusion of morality.  Why would a commission argue with an attorney (or anyone else) about who is better at serving the public good?
• Block voting and agreement.  Some would say that politics always has groups that cling together.  The pressure to conform is obvious. The pact demands loyalty even to the point of creating a separate committee to act without restriction by potential dissenting commissioners.
• Illusion of agreement.  Some commissioners, weaker members, allow others to speak and lead.  Their silence gives consent.  The strong members behave as if everyone is in agreement.
• Guards.  Strong members essentially protect the others from dissenting information that would threaten consensus.  Strong, finance-oriented commissions have persuaded weaker members that this is about financial wrongdoing.  It’s a dodge that seems to keep others away from examining the real functions of an industrial board.
• Labels and Judgment.  All members of the board have been labeled as “traitors” and are being sued—even one person appointed to the board who has never served with the board.

The third, most significant problem is the lack of leadership that can quell the fires of the pompous, arrogance that groupthink has wrought.  Leaders can take steps to stop groupthink in its tracks.  The commission has become ineffective often arguing at length about trivial issues and ignoring the advise of other, more qualified, expert opinions on any variety of topics; there’s a lack of effective leadership.  Neither body really understands the necessity and process of creating and recruiting jobs and industry (not just manufacturing) as a partnership between the two groups.

Go ahead.  Look up groupthink on the Internet.  What do you think our community should do to stop groupthink?  (Hint.  How many commissioners does it take to create groupthink?)