Organizational routines are difficult to change- (Mosher and Harr 1970). 

 There are instances, however, in which organizations deviate from established 

 routines, and become more innovative and accepting of atypical perspectives 

 and solutions. Sharkansky (1970) suggests that these instances are brought 

 about over time by a number of factors, including National traumas, decisions 

 taken at one level of government that affect another level, and changes in the 

 level of economic resources available. Such happenings can lead to a situation 

 becoming ripe for change. Indeed, all of these factors can be seen as having 

 had some causal impact on the changes that have occurred in the last decade in 

 the recognition of instream values and the development of a variety of 

 mechanisms for their positive inclusion in water policy decisions. Typically, 

 change is difficult to achieve, however. LIAM assumes that an organization's 

 internal decisions are shaped by organizational processes. These, in turn, 

 are reinforced by the group "cultures" that tend to develop within organiza- 

 tions, which also reinforce organizational roles (Simon 1964; Schlesinger 

 1968; Janis 1972; Janis and Mann 1979; White 1986). 



3.4 GROUP PSYCHOLOGY 



"Group psychologies" tend to develop within organizations, especially in 

 subunits, along with organizational processes. Janis (1972) refers to this as 

 "groupthink. " Groupthink is a "mode of thinking that people engage in when 

 they are deeply involved in a cohesive group" (Janis 1972:9), and which evolves 

 into an espirit de corps — or a "we" feeling of sol idarity--among group members. 

 Group solidarity is reinforced by a number of factors, including group norms 

 or rules of the game, a group vocabulary, and a group perspective or view of 

 the world. Often, these phenomena are reinforced by such things as "... honest 

 conviction, bias, recruitment, limited information and the structure of power 

 ... [and] these mutually reinforcing tendencies provide for the preservation 

 of their own kind ..." (Schlesinger 1968:284). Subtle constraints exist, 

 moreover, which strengthen group consensus. New members are socialized into 

 acceptance and support of group norms. Deviant members are punished, either 

 by exclusion from intra-group belonging or expulsion from the group altogether 

 (Janis 1972; Mumme and Ingram 1984). 



A number of studies have provided evidence for the existence of groupthink 

 within many types of groups and organizations. Fenno (1970), for example, 

 discovered four major norms operant in the House Appropriations Committee. 

 Newcomers were found to undergo an "initiation rite" in which they learned to 

 adhere to these norms. Kornberg (1970) examined the degree to which formal 

 and informal rules and sanctions are utilized to reinforce group norms in the 

 Canadian legislature. Mumme and Ingram (1984) studied the Papago Indian 

 tribes in southern Arizona, and found a very anti-individualistic group culture 

 that emphasized such values as cooperation, communal ity, and social harmony. 

 For this group, consensus is highly valued in political decisions, especially 

 with regard to the management of water resources. 



Beckett and Lamb (1976) identified another factor that increases group 

 cohesiveness, at least within organizations involved in the resolution of 

 instream flow issues: professional alliance. Professional alliance refers to 

 the high degree of understanding and cooperation that develops among 



22 



