In management and organisational theory, there are at least three principle dysfunctional behaviour present within all groups. Whether one calls the group Umno proper, or Wanita Umno, or the nation state, theorists would argue that one can observe similar dysfunctional decision-making behaviour in all groups most of the time.

The first kind of dysfunctional behaviour is called \”Group Think\” made famous by Irving Janis in 1972 reflecting on the Bay of Pigs incident involving President JFK, and other similar incidents. In Group Think, the experts or the involved team are extremely convinced that they cannot and will not make a wrong decision.

The defective decision therefore is usually because the incumbents in the team do not consider creative alternative paths to resolve the issue, or take into consideration some other factors in their externalities. The implicit assumption is that such an expert team cannot make any mistakes.

The second type of dysfunctional behaviour in groups is called \”The Abilene Paradox,\” a theory developed by Jerry B Harvey in 1988. In this ‘journey to Abilene’ the group or team is so sure that they have agreement that no one wants to be the lone dissenting voice to express their misgivings. They all therefore collude and make the trip together.

The implicit assumption is that the group is in total consensus agreement about their views on the subject and the groups members do in fact truly believe that they are doing the right thing.

The third is called \”Organisational Silence\”, an idea authored by Milliken and Morrison in 2000. In this framework of thought and action, employees or team members do not speak the truth against what the boss believes to be right.

\"\"

Under their presumed imbalance of power in structure, the employees or less senior members learn very quickly to keep their views to themselves. The implicit assumption is that the boss knows all and therefore the boss is always right.

Allow me, therefore, to reflect on the issue of potential dysfunctional behaviors in the context of the Wanita Umno transfer of leadership power between incumbent president Rafidah Aziz and deputy president Sharizat Abdul Jalil.

Identifying the problems within

There are some implicit assumptions being made by all fronts in the matter. Let me make a simple list of ten. Please keep in mind that is this not an exhaustive list:

1. That Rafidah unilaterally decided upon the leadership transition plan and the Wanita Umno exco did not actually agree to the transition plan.

2. That circumstances and situations have not changed since the plan was originally hatched and agreed.

3. That some of the assumptions and reasoned logic for why the plan was hatched may in fact have changed.

4. That it is wrong for Sharizat to challenge the status quo and recant her agreement when many members want her to make and take the challenge.

5. That a challenge for leadership will always split the party.

6. That democracy in Umno means always a harmonious transition of power among the leaders.

7. That Umno democracy cannot handle a real challenge and a good clean and healthy fight.

8. That the deputy must always replace the leader in any organisation.

9. That the right management of a situation is always a consensus of views.

10. That Kamilah Ibrahim is doing something wrong just because she also challenged the status quo.

There could be many other wrong assumptions as well. Nonetheless, premised on these assumptions, can we try and apply the above theories to better understand the real situation?

First is the Group Think phenomenon. Is it possible that many longer term incumbents in the Wanita Umno exco believe that they have a ‘perfect agreement’ and they need not consider or review other alternatives?

Most such alternatives may often challenge and change incumbency. Change is always fearsome. In the Bay of Pigs situation, it was a total and complete failure by trained American CIA operatives which nearly sparked a world war.

Janis defines Group Think as a \”a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members\’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action\”.

Therefore, is Wantia Umno actually facing the danger of ‘group think’ among some members?

Next is the Abilene Paradox wherein everyone believes that they already have a full consensus of views. Actually, the very fact that there is a challenge of status quo suggests that at least some incumbents believe that there is none and never was any consensus.

At least challenger Kamilah Ibrahim is clear about her stand on this issue.

Finally, maybe there is the phenomenon of Organisation Silence wherein all incumbents agreed with the chairperson on her views that the transition plan was good and right when it was first suggested. Obviously, many have now changed their minds and hearts.

Can Wanita Umno step up to the plate?

Regardless of the actual theory of beliefs and behaviour of the members of Wanita Umno, the new and current reality of the situation is as follows:

1. Pak Lah will step down in March 09 and Najib will take over.

2. The Wanita Umno leadership transition plan is effective only in June 09.

3. The Umno transfer of power and elections will take place in March 09.

4. Wanita Umno leadership will be badly bruised by the currently mismanaged agreement.

5. The Wanita role in Umno will be diminished after the ‘battle royal’.

Is there then a better alternative and way forward for Wanita Umno, without causing hurt and pain within its time-tested leadership structure; when in fact it is only Wanita Umno which has remained strong within the Umno system before this breakdown in mismanaged agreement?

Given all aspects of the different possible reasons argued above, my three senses tell me that maybe there is still a better alternative than a ‘battle royal’ of the winner takes all variety.

Umno itself is currently very weak in BN and Wanita Umno may still be the strongest component within all its component members. Therefore, to avoid a good and clean fight till death, maybe a compromise can be considered.

Rafidah is still a good horse and may be better suited to fight the ‘crooked’ men in Umno. Therefore, let her stay on as an incumbent and ‘newly elected’ vice-president of Umno representing women even without holding the Wanita presidency.

Why not? Sharizat takes over as President by March with Kamilah as her deputy. All three can help with the reconstruction and consolidation wherein, in fact maybe, the women can help rebuild Umno more competently than the men.

The problems of Umno with the language and psychology of \”ketuanan\” are really all linked to the male ego. Umno today may need more of an androgynous style of leadership more than ever before. Therefore Wanita Umno leadership should stop seeing their internal terrain as the battle zone but instead see themselves as the potential resolution of the real problems within Umno itself.

While at the Ministry of International Trade and Industry and for her 50th birthday, some of us were involved in producing and launching a book which entitled \”Rafidah: The Winning Formula\”. I believe ‘Kak Rafidah’ is still good for Umno, especially for BN and to keep the men in their places.