Legislative Confrontation of Groupthink in US Natural Resource Agencies

Within the apparent strength of proud, successful, cohesive agencies are often found characteristics that inhibit their ability to adapt successfully in an environment of change. Organizations can be so successful that they feel invulnerable to public petition. They can stereotype, and dismiss as un...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental conservation 1988, Vol.15 (2), p.123-128
1. Verfasser: Kennedy, James J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Within the apparent strength of proud, successful, cohesive agencies are often found characteristics that inhibit their ability to adapt successfully in an environment of change. Organizations can be so successful that they feel invulnerable to public petition. They can stereotype, and dismiss as uninformed ‘outsiders’ or biased trouble-makers, any others who criticize them. Janis (1967) has described such organizational tendencies as groupthink behaviour—where proud and successful, professional organizations such as the USDA-Forest Service (USFS), consider themselves superior to the public, and where any external criticism is filtered, rationalized, and stereotyped to minimize the need for organizational introspection and change. This article looks at how groupthink tendencies were a normal, understandable part of USFS behaviour in the 1950–60s—and how these tendencies inhibited its adaptation to a post-industrial American society that was increasingly concerned with forest recreational and amenity values. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1970) was the first of several laws that directly confronted the utilitarian, developmental values and the groupthink tendencies in federal natural resource agencies. Responding to NEPA (1970) and other legislative and policy changes of that era, the USFS has latterly become a much more sexually and professionally diverse agency, that is more open to public input than formerly. This volte-face has reduced the probability of groupthink operating in the agency, and consequently improved the latter's prospects of a useful and equitable future.
ISSN:0376-8929
1469-4387
DOI:10.1017/S0376892900028927