You’ve finally done it: you’ve put together the dream team and are on our way to the Andes mountains for the most important archeological expedition of your career. With you there’s Johannes the language expert, Ginger the anthropologist, Daniel the bones guy, and Paul. Paul does a lot of things but doesn’t speak much… probably for the best, as Paul also does a lot of things that you don’t know much about simply due to liability reasons. After 17 days of hiking in the cold, wintry weather you’ve reached the location from the secret map discovered inscribed on an old woman’s back hundreds of years ago – preserved and secretly stolen and recovered from many nationalities ever since. The intricately carved rock marks the spot, just like the map claimed it would. There’s also some language on a wildly deadly curse for anyone who disturbs this rock and descends into the cave beyond.
Ginger, the anthropologist, insists that more excavation needs to be done in the surrounding area to ensure the safety of this cave. Johannes, the language expert, speaks over Ginger every time she attempts to voice her concerns, claiming he is the expert in the language after all – and he is telling you all that it’s clearly been misinterpreted. He literally scoffs at any idea to the contrary, raising his voice and demanding you produce your language expert credentials, since they must be more prestigious than his own since you’re questioning him. He also reminds everyone how hard you’ve all worked together to get here; all the nights in foreign lands you’ve spent together – practically a family! You’re a cohesive unit. Masters of your trades.
Johannes is confident with his analysis. You and the remaining group members rationalize that he is the expert, after all, and your collective experience doesn’t come close to his in this area. Plus, time is running out. This is day 17 of an expedition that’s only funded for 24.Pressure is on. Stakeholders are frothing at the bit. ALl of your reputations are at stake – if there’s a delay, who knows if even a community college will hire you to mop floors. Paul knows languages pretty well, as he must due to the nature of his “business,” but since he lacks the three doctorates that Johannes likes to bring up constantly, he keeps quiet – even though he is pretty sure the rock inscriptions are insidious warnings and a note about there being no handrail beware… He shrugs. Johannes is the expert. You, Ginger, Johannes, and Paul work together to push the rock away from the mouth of this cave only to immediately be overcome by the poisonous gasses that have been waiting for centuries to trap a greedy bunch of plunderers.
The group in this overly dramatic example is an overly dramatic example of groupthink in action. Groupthink occurs when decisions are made by way of a rushed and ultimately flawed process resulting from strong pressures among group members to come to an agreement (Gruman et al., 2016). In this example, the group members were under pressure to complete the expedition with results from the cave in a restricted time that didn’t allow for the exploration of alternatives. They were insulated from others, alone in the Andes. Johannes slide into a directive leadership role – pushing for task completion above all else and reminding the other group members of their need to push to the goal fast, without embarrassment of failure. The situation was ripe for the group to fall victim to a devastating (and dramatic) decision to open the cave driven by groupthink.
Concurrence tendencies within a group are grown in an environment in which group members are looking to avoid disagreements during the process of decision making (APA Dictionary of Psychology, n.d.). Janis (1973) describes groupthink and a type of defective judgment not caused by human error in very cohesive groups. In a rush for a decision to favor outside sources, groupthink can lead to disastrous decisions that a group who had taken more time to thoroughly explore alternatives and options may not have taken. Driven by group norms, the desire to remain cohesive, and falling to the pressures of uniformity, groupthink decisions rarely result in positive decisions (Janis, 1973).
It feels similar to the “if everyone else jumped off the cliff, would you also jump off the cliff?” hypothetical that parents posit to their children in regards to following the crowd after a particularly bad decision…. And it’s possible that those instances, also, were a product of groupthink. A sense of invulnerability in the kids’ group, rationalization that what they were doing was necessary, belief that what they were doing was okay, and pressure applied to any kid who decided to speak up. Classic groupthink territory, according to Janis (1973).
Groupthink can end with bad decisions being reached by good people due to the pressures to maintain group cohesiveness and perform/provide under pressure. While the example used is clearly for dramatic purposes, these situations have happened in real life – check out the classic groupthink situation that happened with the Challenger space shuttle and the O rings that were pushed aside as a problem and declared fit due to a major groupthink misstep. While group cohesiveness can be used in positive ways, it’s imperative that groupthink be avoided by ensuring that outsider information or observers are part of the decision making process and that each member has an equal footing to make decisions.
Don’t let the Johannes of the world take us all out.
References:
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). https://dictionary.apa.org/concurrence-seeking
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2016). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Janis, I. L. (1973). GROUPTHINK AND GROUP DYNAMICS: A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF DEFECTIVE POLICY DECISIONS*. Policy Studies Journal, 2(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1973.tb00117.x
Cambridge Dictionary describes group think as, “the process in which bad decisions are made by a group because its member do not want to express opinions, suggest new ideas, etc.” (Cambridge, 2023). Undoubtably groupthink can be dangerous and fatal depending on the situation. My argument is not in favor of group think, but on the contrary to further cement that fact that not expressing opposing viewpoints, or opinions can be dangerous at best, and fatal at worst. I’m sure that the examples in which opposing viewpoints should have been listened to and strongly considered are many. What I would like to highlight one instances when opposing view should have been listened to, in this case, the most recent COVID-19 lockdowns (Joffe, 2021).
In most recent history, millions of Americans were forced to lockdown, restricting population movement, work, education all in the name of trying to flatten the curve (Joffe, 2021). The lockdowns were attributed to fear and panic not only in the United States but worldwide. Many united in a “battle” against the devasting effects of COVID-19. A battle against a common enemy soon ensued and a war was waged against all those with opposing viewpoints. Whether it was the pressure to come up with a plan to curb the spread or an attempt to find a quick solution, all opposing viewpoints were ignored, if not censored. Instead of waiting for all information to become available, we did what a military commander would do, when faced with only minutes to launch a preemptive military strike. Forcing a commander to order the possible killing of innocent bystanders or what can be seen as collateral damage all in the name of the greater good. In our case, the collateral damage was our jobs, kids being out of school, and the economic downturn that followed. Not to mention that people who suffered in isolation (Joffe, 2021).
So how did we get to this point, and what were the consequences? Aptly described in your post; all this occurred because of the decision that were made very hastily and the suppression of all descending opinion, also known as groupthink. Group think led millions worldwide to conformity and blind obedience (Schippers, 2022). This not only caused discourse within families but also within our society at large. Those who refused or chose not to wear a mask were viewed as naysayers or even worse as the enemy themselves. Not to mention the harm we did to those who suffered from mental health. A few aggravating factors were suffered by kids. In some communities’ kids were forced to adapt to an environment in which they lacked access to internet, and were exposed to food insecurity (Schippers, 2022). Any sensible reason to conduct a holistic risk assessment and implement reasonable sound decision was ignored (Bonneux & Van Damme, 2011). If there was any doubt that groupthink can be harmful, we should remember our history, unless we wish to repeat it.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/groupthink
Joffe A. R. (2021). COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink. Frontiers in public health, 9, 625778. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778
Bonneux, L., & Van Damme, W. (2011). Health is more than influenza. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89(7), 539–540. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.089086
Schippers M. C. (2020). For the Greater Good? The Devastating Ripple Effects of the Covid-19 Crisis. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 577740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577740