Groupthink is defined as a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individiuals reaches a consensus wothout critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. It is based on the common desire to not ‘rock the boat’ or upset the balance of a group of people.
It is characterised by groups that strive for consensus at the cost of effective decision making. The unity of the group may be of the highest concern rather than the actual decision itself. Independent thinking and alternate views are usually overridden in order to maintain the consensus.
The memebers of the group may have an unnerving belief that the group’s competence and morality are of the highest order so that they may not question ethically dubious decisions or actions of the group. Mainitaining the group party line overrides the importance of bringing forward an individual’s views.
The term Groupthink was first identified by Irving Janis in 1972. The study theorised that groups of people make poor decisions based on a number of factors. These include:
- Not enough diversity in the group. The individual members all have common backgrounds that may not consider the opinions of outside groups.
- When an important decision is required to be made there is a level of stress attached. This stress increases if the amount of time to make that decision is reduced. The term for this is Decisional Stress and occurs when group members try and reduces the stress and insecurity of an important decision by any means possible. Group members look to make the decsion quickly or even let someone make the decsion for them.
- There may be a powerful figure in charge of the group and members may be hesitant to speak up. When this rigid leadership is in place it means group discussions are tightly controlled. This tight control also allows dissenting voices to be intimidated or not heard at all.
- Isolated groups are characterised by making important decisions that are kept confidential. Because these isolated groups often require their decsiions to be kept secret, they do not seek the opinions of outside parties in their decision making process. The absence of criticism brings a sense of invulnerability and a lack of morality.
Telltale signs that Groupthink is happening
The problem with Groupthink is that it may be happening and you may not be aware of it. You may believe that there are safeguards in place preventing it from happening. Or, there isn’t the awarenesss of the dangers that Groupthink brings to a group of people charged with the responsibility of making important decisions.
Groupthink is most common when a tight knit group with a strong leader is operating in a stressful situation. It may be diffiicult to find a suitable solution other than the one that has been presented or there is an incentive for the leader to ensure that this is the decision is agreed upon.
Some of the characteristics include:
- A feeling of invulnerability
- A collective effort to rationalise the group’s decision
- A general unwillingness to pursue alternative solutions
- A deep sense of belief in the morality of the group
- A stereotyped view of those outside of the group
- Dissent is not tolerated
Case Studies
An interesting example of Groupthink was raised in a recent class that I was facilitating. A student was a member of a sporting club committee and he identified that there was a level of groupthink occurring at the committee level. The student and the President of the club decided to present a ridiculous idea to the meeting which again was agreed to by the committee. The President challenged the committee members with the fact that this was a terrible idea and highlighted that the function of the committee was being hampered by this constant agreement.
Since the committee were challeneged there has been a marked improvement in the amount of differing views that have been considered.
Another high profile example was the Challenger disaster that occurred on the morning of January 28, 1986. Days before the launch, engineers frm Morton Thiokol, the company that built the rocket boosters identified that due to freezing overnight temperatures the O-ring seals on the booster rockets would fail.
NASA engineers did not take heed of the warnings that were presented by the experts and a level of groupthink was displayed. When the go ahead for launch was received, there was no mention of the Morton Thiokol objections.
The shuttle launched as scheduled but disaster struck 73 seconds later when the spacecraft disintergrated over the Atlantic Ocean.
Remedies for Preventing Groupthink:
- Plan for it – consideration of Groupthink should be brought into the project risk plan as well as developing mitigation strategies to monitor and reduce it. Its not that there is an expectation that Groupthink will derail the project, rather having a way to manage it if it does occur.
- Encourage healthy debate – for the short term leaders may enjoy getting their own way when it comes to the decisions of the group. However the long term result can sometimes be disastrous if the ideas of one person aren’t challenged. It is incumbent on leaders to encourage people to speak up and challenge the opinions of the senior leadership. One way a leader may prompt this is by saying to the group, “ Now tell me something I need to know even if you think I don’t want to hear it”.
- Encourage diversity – when filling the decision making roles look for people with diverse backgrounds. The diversity may come from a cultural difference, personality or even from different departments of the organisation. For example a Marketing Executive will have different view to the lead Scientist in the R & D department who may have different view to someone in Finance.
- Acknowledge biases in data – leaders need to be aware that data has not been cherry picked just to suit an argument or poiint of view. This may mean that leaders are not actively communicating to data scientists on what information they require.
- Reach Out – bring in stakeholders who may be affected by the decision. They will quickly set leaders straight if they are going to be negatively impacted by the decision.
- Spped Kills – a leader must consider whether a decision was discussed enough. Was the discusssion led by a group of inflencers? Were there any alternate views provided? Was there a feeling that the issue was dealt with in an uncomfortably easy way? A leader who feels there wasn’t enough debate may need to delay the decision pending further research.
It should be remembered that having a collobarative group is great but this uniformity should not come at the expense of creative ideas.
In fact Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple mention in his book, “iWoz”: “ I don’t believe anything really revolutionary has ever been invented by committee….I’m going to give you some advice that might be hard to take. That advice is: Work alone….Not on a committee. Not on a team.”
Focusing on diverse collaborative efforts may be challenging for a leader in the short term but, the long term may result in a better bottom line and improved shareholder returns. This can occur whether the group is friendly with one another or not.
