The Perils Of Groupthink

Group Think is based on human social behavior which focuses more on maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity. Groupthink may cause groups to make irrational decisions, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. It is a type of thought in which group members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically analyzing the ideas. Highly cohesive group get engaged in groupthink more often. As the group members are closer, so there is less chance to break up the cohesion. Group experiencing group think do not consider all alternatives available, rather they sacrifice quality decisions for the sake of unanimity. Generally group experiencing groupthink examines a few alternatives and tries not to be critical to other ideas for avoiding conflict and maintaining a harmonious relationship. They are highly selective in gathering information and not give much importance to expert’s opinion. These are some of the reasons for the existence of group think. Groupthink is a process whereby a group makes bad decisions even though each individual in the group realizes that the result is going to be bad. It is human nature that all of us have a strong need to be accepted in a group. We want others to like us, so we act in manner in which we get group acceptance easily. Sometimes groupthink occurs when the idea come from higher up in corporate ladder. Nobody wants to challenge his/her boss’s idea even though he/she feels that idea won’t work. It’s also human tendency that we don’t want to fail in front of our colleagues or peers so we check ourselves from bringing out creative ideas. For this one can go for brainstorming process which encourages wilder ideas.
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance.

The concept of groupthink was first identified by Irving Janis, a social psychologist at Yale University, United States. Groupthink refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When people are in groupthink mode, they automatically apply the “preserve group harmony” test to every decision they face. Jane was convinced that the concurrence-seeking tendency of close knit groups could cause them to make inferior decisions. He believed that the “superglue of solidarity” that bonds group members together often causes their mental; process to get stuck as well.
.Some negative outcomes of groupthink include: Examining few alternatives ,Not being critical of each other's ideas, Not examining early alternatives ,Not seeking expert opinion ,Being highly selective in gathering information ,Not having contingency plans .
Groupthink is most likely to occur when certain preconditions are met, such as when the group is highly cohesive, isolated from contrary opinions, and ruled by a directive leader who makes his or her wishes known. Well, tough words, but seems to be true in some cases-the most well known being the doomed launch of the Challenger space shuttle.
The Challenger Launch: A Model of Defective Decision making
On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger blasted off from the Kennedy space center in Florida. Seventy-three seconds later, the rocket exploded and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean killing all seven crewmembers. President Reagan immediately appointed a commission to determine the causes of the accident. The commission identified that the primary cause as a failure in the joint between two stages of the rocket that allowed hot gases to escape during the burn. Volatile rocket fuel spewed out when a rubber O-ring failed to seal the joint leading to the explosion of the rocket.
The man on the street could understand the crux of the commission’s findings .What they could not was why NASA had launched the Challenger when there were strong reasons to believe that conditions were not safe. The commission concluded that a highly flawed decision process was the contributing cause of the disaster. Janis was fascinated with the question of how an acknowledged group of expert’s could commit such a mistake. He was convinced that this was not an isolated instance and spotted the same group dynamic at work in other questionable decisions. However, Janis did not regard the decision makers as evil or foolish. Rather, he saw them as victims of groupthink.
Some symptoms of groupthink:

Janis listed eight symptoms that show how concurrence seeking leads the group astray. Given below are the symptoms identified by Janis with quotes from the Report of the Presidential Commission on Challenger Disaster that illustrates how groupthink manifests itself in group behavior:
1. Having an illusion of invulnerability:
It happens when a group thinks that they cannot go wrong. Confidence among the members of the group is remarkably high and is reflected in the decisions that they make. The American space program had never experienced an in-flight fatality before. When engineers raised the possibility of catastrophic O-ring blow-by, NASA manager George hardy nonchalantly pointed out this risk was “true of every other flight we have had.” Janis summarizes this attitude as “everything is going to work out all right because we are special”.
2. Belief in Inherent Morality of the Group:

It occurs when the group thinks tremendously of their morality. The group believes that it is doing the right thing in all circumstances. Under the sway of groupthink, members automatically assume the absolute rightness of their actions and the cause. In the case NASA managers had shifted the moral rules under which they operated. As one engineer told the commission” I had the feeling that we were in the position of having to prove that it was unsafe instead of the other way around.’

3. Collective Rationalization:

Groups who experience this, believe that nothing can be wrong with their plan even if there is significant evidence to prove otherwise.
Manager Lawrence Mullo confirmed that “no one in the meeting questioned whether the secondary seal was capable and in position to seal during the early part of ignition transient.” This supported the mindset of “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.”

4. Out-group Stereotypes:

Groups often pay little attention to what outsiders have to say, and this can be detrimental. Thiokol people were not part of the in-group of the flight readiness review team and were perceived to be alarmists. So, when Thiokol engineers recommended postponing the launch until the temperature rose to 53 degrees Fahrenheit as O-ring seals had never been tested below this temperature, NASA’s Mulloy caustically asked whether they expected to wait until April(three months later)to launch the shuttle.


5. Self-censorship:

"Self-censorship" occurs when group members don't share their ideas with the rest of the group because of fear of being rejected.
Thiokol engineer George McDonald wanted to postpone the flight. But instead of emphatically stating so, he offered an equivocal opinion. He suggested, in tempered words, that “lower temperatures are in the direction of badness for both O-rings.” So the pressure to confirm colored the views and statements of those who fund themselves against the majority view.

6. Illusion of Unanimity (everyone always agrees with everyone else):

It explains that silence can often be interpreted as acceptance. NASA managers perpetuated the fiction that everyone was fully in accord on the launch recommendation. They admitted to the presidential commission that they didn’t report Thiokol’s hesitancy with their superiors. As happens in most cases, the flight readiness review team interpreted silence as agreement.

7. Direct Pressure on Dissenters:

Thiokol engineers felt pressure from two directions to reverse their “no-go” recommendation. NASA managers had already postponed the launch three times and were fearful the American public would regard the agency as inept. This triggered Hardy’s retort that he was appalled at Thiokol’s recommendations. Similarly, the company’s management was fearful of losing future NASA contracts. Thiokol’s senior vice president urged his colleague to “take off engineering hat and put on his management hat.”

8. Self-Appointed Mind Guards:

Mind guards try to protect a leader from assault by troublesome ideas. NASA managers insulated the head of the project from the debate over the integrity of the rocket booster seals. Even though Roger Boisjoly was Thiokol’s expert on O-rings, he latter complained that he “was not even asked to participate in giving input to the final decision charts.”
What is at once ironic and tragic is that all the concerned people were acting in good faith and had the project’s welfare in mind.


How to Avoid Groupthink:

The symptoms mentioned above can be good indicators of a group’s susceptibility to groupthink. Once the group members become conscious of it they must take steps to nip this tendency in the bud. Here are some measures that can help.

Work as subgroups:

Usually groups work on various issues simultaneously and therefore there is tendency among the members to remain within their respective domain leading to tunnel vision approach. Breaking into subgroups that work simultaneously on the same issue can prove beneficial in exposing the group to diverse and competing ideas. This would also reduce the pressure to conform. All the members would be focused towards the larger picture and would be in a better position to find lacunae or inconsistencies. All the subgroups should eventually come together to arrive at the best alternative.
Groups should divide into two or more subgroups occasionally (Janis 265). Each group should be led by a different chairperson. Both groups can eventually come together and discuss ideas. Groups that do this are less likely to be locked into one solution.

2. Have a devil’s advocate:

Every group should have a specific member who has the job of playing devil’s advocate. This person should seriously question much of what the group members say. The devil’s advocate must be willing to vocally share his ideas with the group. This strategy will force the group to take a second, hard look at every decision that is made. It must be understood that a devil’s advocate is not a negative person or institution. S/he provides constructive criticism and questions unchallenged assumptions.




Leader’s Pivotal Role :

Leaders of the group have a special role to play here. They must not lead the group to believe that a certain outcome is expected. To get forthright opinion of all members, leaders should avoid openly siding with a particular viewpoint at the initial stages. The leader’s behavior must reinforce that diverse points of view are not only welcomed but also valued. The group leader should assume special responsibility for this apart from his other assignments. In groups having no pre-assigned leader, one of the senior members must assume this responsibility.


Make Haste Slowly:

To avoid groupthink, a cautious approach to decision-making is required. Making an important or strategic decision hastily, in the first meeting itself should be avoided even if the decision appears to be sound from all angles. It should be reviewed after a few days and if it seems proper even then, only then should the go-ahead be given. A slight delay, say a couple of days, would help give a detached perspective to the decision and might reveal things in a clearer light.


Group Constitution:

Many issues pertaining to groupthink can be taken care of at the stage of group formation itself. Those constituting the group should try to ensure a heterogeneous mix among the group members having members from different functions, locations, hierarchical levels etc. would help to reduce the excessive cohesiveness of the group and mitigate the chance of having a group where individuals would be more concentrated with having consensus rather than finding the best possible alternative.


6. The Individual Perspective:

An individual must strike the balance between collective thinking and individual thinking. As an individual we must ask ourselves: Do I stand up to the group? Do I listen to what everyone else says before forming my own opinion? Do I constantly adjust my opinion so that it is closer to the consensus? Trying to answer such questions will help the individual assess whether s/he is giving his best to the group .An assertive individual who is not inhibited to voice his opinion is the greatest asset to the group.

7. Using outside experts:
Outside experts can be brought in to observe the group functioning. The experts should have the ability to question the decisions of the group. The experts need to be very qualified and skilled in their ability to sort through and analyze solutions of the group. The experts must also be able to criticize the group in a fashion that will not turn the group away from the expert. Good communication skills are essential. It is important that experts become a part of the group before a general consensus is reached among all group members.