7.3 Groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where group members prioritize harmony over critical thinking, leading to poor decisions. It occurs when cohesive groups become isolated, lack impartial leadership, or face external pressures. Understanding groupthink is crucial for recognizing its symptoms and preventing its negative impacts on organizational decision-making.

Recognizing groupthink involves identifying key characteristics like illusions of invulnerability, rationalization of warnings, and pressure on dissenters. To prevent it, leaders can encourage critical thinking, assign devil's advocate roles, and seek diverse perspectives. By addressing groupthink, organizations can make more informed decisions and avoid potential pitfalls.

Definition of groupthink

• Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome
• It refers to the tendency of group members to prioritize consensus and group cohesion over critical thinking, dissent, and thorough analysis of alternatives
• Groupthink can lead to poor decisions, as the group may fail to consider all relevant information, ignore warning signs, or dismiss dissenting opinions in favor of maintaining group unity

Origins of groupthink theory

• The concept of groupthink was first introduced by social psychologist Irving Janis in his 1972 book "Victims of Groupthink"
• Janis developed the theory after studying several high-profile foreign policy decisions, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Vietnam War, where he observed that groups of intelligent individuals made irrational decisions due to group pressures
• Janis identified several antecedent conditions and symptoms of groupthink, which he believed could lead to defective decision-making processes and outcomes
• The theory has since been applied to various contexts, including business, politics, and organizations, to understand how group dynamics can influence decision-making and power structures

Characteristics of groupthink

Illusion of invulnerability

Top images from around the web for Illusion of invulnerability

• 

  Shared Use Trails – Trailism View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Groupthink | Oscar Berg | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Decision Making Process | Organizational Behavior and Human Relations View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Shared Use Trails – Trailism View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Groupthink | Oscar Berg | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Illusion of invulnerability

• 

  Shared Use Trails – Trailism View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Groupthink | Oscar Berg | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Decision Making Process | Organizational Behavior and Human Relations View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Shared Use Trails – Trailism View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Groupthink | Oscar Berg | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Group members believe that their group is immune to failure or negative consequences
• This leads to excessive optimism and risk-taking, as the group may ignore potential dangers or limitations
• Example: A company's management team may believe that their strategy is foolproof and dismiss concerns about market volatility or competition

Belief in inherent morality

• The group believes that their decisions and actions are inherently moral or justified, regardless of the consequences
• This can lead to a disregard for ethical considerations or the impact of their decisions on others
• Example: A political party may believe that their policies are morally superior and dismiss criticisms or concerns about the potential harm to certain groups

Rationalization of warnings

• Group members may rationalize or downplay warning signs or dissenting opinions that challenge their beliefs or decisions
• This can lead to a failure to recognize or address potential problems or risks
• Example: A project team may dismiss concerns about budget overruns or technical difficulties, believing that they can overcome any obstacles

Stereotyping of opposition

• The group may stereotype or demonize those who oppose their views or decisions, viewing them as weak, incompetent, or malicious
• This can lead to a failure to consider alternative perspectives or to engage in constructive dialogue with critics
• Example: A company's leadership may dismiss employee complaints or union demands as unreasonable or self-serving, rather than considering their merits

Self-censorship

• Group members may refrain from expressing dissenting opinions or doubts, in order to avoid conflict or maintain group harmony
• This can lead to a lack of critical thinking or a failure to consider alternative viewpoints
• Example: An employee may hesitate to voice concerns about a proposed strategy, fearing that it may damage their reputation or relationships within the company

Illusion of unanimity

• The group may perceive a false sense of consensus, believing that everyone is in agreement with the majority view
• This can lead to a failure to recognize or address underlying disagreements or concerns
• Example: A committee may assume that a lack of vocal dissent means that everyone supports a particular decision, when in reality some members may have reservations but feel pressured to conform

Direct pressure on dissenters

• The group may explicitly pressure or criticize those who express dissenting opinions, in order to maintain group cohesion and conformity
• This can lead to a suppression of alternative viewpoints and a reinforcement of the majority opinion
• Example: A team leader may dismiss or belittle a team member who raises concerns about a project, labeling them as a troublemaker or not a team player

Self-appointed mindguards

• Certain group members may take on the role of "mindguards," actively shielding the group from information or opinions that challenge their beliefs or decisions
• This can lead to a selective filtering of information and a reinforcement of the group's biases or assumptions
• Example: A senior executive may withhold negative market research from the board of directors, in order to maintain support for a favored strategy

Factors contributing to groupthink

High group cohesiveness

• When a group is highly cohesive and close-knit, members may prioritize maintaining group harmony over critical thinking or dissent
• This can lead to a pressure to conform and a reluctance to challenge the majority opinion
• Example: A startup's founding team may have a strong sense of camaraderie and shared vision, which can make it difficult for individuals to voice concerns or alternative ideas

Insulation of group

• When a group is isolated from outside influences or perspectives, they may become more susceptible to groupthink
• This can lead to a lack of exposure to diverse viewpoints and a reinforcement of the group's existing beliefs
• Example: A company's executive team may make decisions without seeking input from employees, customers, or external experts, leading to a narrow and potentially biased perspective

Lack of impartial leadership

• When a group's leader fails to encourage critical thinking or dissent, and instead promotes a particular viewpoint or agenda, it can contribute to groupthink
• This can lead to a suppression of alternative ideas and a pressure to conform to the leader's vision
• Example: A CEO who strongly advocates for a particular strategy may discourage employees from expressing doubts or proposing alternative approaches

Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures

• When a group lacks clear norms or processes for decision-making, it can lead to a rushed or incomplete analysis of options and consequences
• This can contribute to groupthink by failing to ensure a thorough and impartial evaluation of alternatives
• Example: A committee tasked with selecting a new vendor may make a decision based on personal preferences or gut feelings, rather than conducting a systematic review of each option's merits and drawbacks

Homogeneity of members' backgrounds

• When a group is composed of individuals with similar backgrounds, experiences, or perspectives, it can lead to a lack of diversity in thinking and a reinforcement of shared biases
• This can contribute to groupthink by limiting the range of viewpoints and ideas considered
• Example: A company's board of directors may consist primarily of individuals from the same industry or educational background, leading to a narrow perspective on strategic decisions

High stress from external threats

• When a group is under high stress or pressure from external threats (e.g., competition, public scrutiny, time constraints), it can lead to a heightened desire for group cohesion and a suppression of dissent
• This can contribute to groupthink by prioritizing quick consensus over thorough analysis and debate
• Example: A company facing a public relations crisis may make hasty decisions in an attempt to mitigate damage, without fully considering the long-term implications or alternative approaches

Consequences of groupthink

Incomplete survey of alternatives

• The group may fail to consider a full range of alternative options or solutions, instead focusing on a limited set of choices that align with their existing preferences or assumptions
• This can lead to suboptimal decisions that overlook potentially better alternatives
• Example: A city council may consider only two options for addressing a budget deficit (raising taxes or cutting services), without exploring other possibilities such as public-private partnerships or revenue-generating initiatives

Incomplete survey of objectives

• The group may fail to clearly define or prioritize their objectives, leading to a lack of clarity or consistency in decision-making
• This can result in decisions that do not align with the group's overall goals or values
• Example: A non-profit organization may pursue a new program without fully considering how it fits with their mission or long-term strategic objectives

Failure to examine risks of preferred choice

• The group may overlook or downplay the potential risks or drawbacks of their preferred choice, focusing instead on its perceived benefits
• This can lead to a lack of contingency planning or a failure to anticipate and mitigate potential negative consequences
• Example: A company may invest heavily in a new product line without thoroughly assessing the market risks, competitive landscape, or potential technical challenges

Failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives

• The group may fail to reconsider options that were initially rejected, even if new information or circumstances arise that may make them more viable
• This can lead to a rigid adherence to a chosen course of action, even if it becomes less optimal over time
• Example: A school board may dismiss the idea of remote learning early in a pandemic, and fail to revisit the option even as the situation worsens and other districts adapt

Poor information search

• The group may not seek out or consider a wide range of information sources or viewpoints, instead relying on a narrow or biased set of data
• This can lead to decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information
• Example: A marketing team may make decisions based solely on internal sales data, without conducting market research or gathering feedback from customers

Selective bias in processing information

• The group may interpret or prioritize information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs or preferences, while dismissing or downplaying contradictory evidence
• This can lead to a reinforcement of the group's biases and a failure to challenge assumptions
• Example: A political campaign may focus on polls that show their candidate in a favorable light, while dismissing or discrediting polls that suggest otherwise

Failure to work out contingency plans

• The group may fail to develop or consider contingency plans for potential obstacles, setbacks, or changing circumstances
• This can leave the group unprepared to adapt or respond effectively when challenges arise
• Example: A event planning committee may not have a backup plan for inclement weather or speaker cancellations, leading to last-minute scrambling or event failures

Preventing groupthink

Encouraging critical thinking

• Leaders and group members should actively encourage and model critical thinking, questioning assumptions, and considering alternative perspectives
• This can help create a culture that values independent thought and constructive dissent
• Example: A manager may start each meeting by asking team members to share any concerns, ideas, or feedback they have, and openly discussing them as a group

Assigning devil's advocate role

• Assigning one or more group members to play the role of "devil's advocate," tasked with challenging the group's ideas and assumptions and presenting alternative viewpoints
• This can help ensure that dissenting opinions are heard and considered, even if they are not naturally occurring within the group
• Example: A project team may designate a rotating devil's advocate for each phase of the project, responsible for identifying potential risks, limitations, or alternative approaches

Introducing outside perspectives

• Seeking input or feedback from individuals or groups outside of the immediate decision-making team, to gain fresh perspectives and challenge insular thinking
• This can include consulting with experts, stakeholders, or members of other departments or organizations
• Example: A company's executive team may invite a panel of industry experts or customer representatives to provide feedback on a proposed strategy

Avoiding isolation

• Encouraging group members to maintain connections and communication with individuals and groups outside of their immediate team or organization
• This can help prevent the group from becoming too insular or disconnected from external realities and perspectives
• Example: A research team may collaborate with colleagues from other institutions or disciplines to gain new insights and avoid blind spots

Promoting diversity and independent thinking

• Actively seeking out and including individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives in the decision-making process
• Encouraging and rewarding independent thinking, even when it challenges the group's prevailing views
• Example: A hiring committee may prioritize diversity and seek out candidates who bring new skills, experiences, or viewpoints to the team

Examples of groupthink in organizations

Bay of Pigs invasion

• In 1961, the US government under President John F. Kennedy approved a CIA plan to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro's regime
• The decision-making process was characterized by many symptoms of groupthink, including overestimation of the group's abilities, stereotyping of opposition, and self-censorship of dissent
• The invasion was a major failure, resulting in the capture or death of most of the invading force and a significant political embarrassment for the Kennedy administration

Challenger space shuttle disaster

• In 1986, the Challenger space shuttle exploded shortly after launch, killing all seven crew members on board
• The decision to launch despite concerns about the safety of the O-ring seals in cold weather was influenced by groupthink within NASA and its contractor, Morton Thiokol
• Engineers who raised concerns about the O-rings were pressured to reverse their recommendations, and the desire to maintain the launch schedule overshadowed the potential risks

Enron scandal

• Enron, a major US energy company, collapsed in 2001 following revelations of widespread accounting fraud and corruption
• The company's culture and decision-making processes were characterized by many elements of groupthink, including illusions of invulnerability, belief in inherent morality, and self-censorship of dissent
• Top executives and board members failed to question or challenge unethical practices, leading to the company's eventual bankruptcy and legal consequences

Criticisms and limitations of groupthink theory

• Some researchers argue that groupthink is not a well-defined or empirically validated concept, and that its symptoms and consequences are not consistently observed in real-world decision-making groups
• The theory may oversimplify the complex dynamics of group decision-making and overlook other important factors, such as individual motivations, power structures, or external influences
• Groupthink theory focuses primarily on the negative aspects of group cohesion and conformity, and may not adequately account for the potential benefits of group collaboration and consensus-building
• The theory's emphasis on the role of leadership in preventing groupthink may underestimate the importance of other factors, such as organizational culture, incentive structures, or decision-making processes

Groupthink vs individual decision-making biases

• While groupthink is a phenomenon specific to group decision-making, many of its symptoms and consequences can be seen as extensions or amplifications of individual cognitive biases
• For example, the illusion of invulnerability in groupthink is related to the overconfidence bias in individual decision-making, where people overestimate their own abilities or the likelihood of success
• Similarly, the selective bias in processing information in groupthink is related to confirmation bias in individual decision-making, where people seek out or interpret information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs
• However, groupthink is distinct from individual biases in that it emerges from the specific dynamics and pressures of group interaction, such as the desire for harmony, the fear of dissent, or the influence of leadership

Implications for organizational decision-making

• Organizations should be aware of the potential for groupthink in their decision-making processes and take steps to prevent or mitigate its effects
• This can include fostering a culture of critical thinking and dissent, ensuring diversity and independence in decision-making groups, and establishing clear norms and procedures for evaluating options and risks
• Leaders should model and encourage open communication, constructive debate, and the consideration of alternative viewpoints, rather than suppressing dissent or promoting conformity
• Organizations should also be proactive in seeking out and incorporating external perspectives and expertise, to avoid becoming too insular or disconnected from important stakeholders or market realities
• By understanding and addressing the factors that contribute to groupthink, organizations can make better, more informed decisions that are aligned with their goals and values and resilient to potential challenges or disruptions