Irving Janis (1983) was the first to introduce groupthink, a flawed decision-making process that occurs when strong pressures for consensus among group members lead to the dismissal of critical evaluation and alternative viewpoints (Gruman et al., 2016). This phenomenon often results in poor decisions as members prioritize group harmony above thorough analysis (Gruman et al., 2016). Antecedent conditions contributing to groupthink include high cohesiveness, directive leadership, high stress, isolation from outside opinions, and exaggerated collective efficacy (Gruman et al., 2016).
Groupthink is a dangerous concept and has been attributed to many famous catastrophes including the Challenger space shuttle disaster, the U.S.’s unpreparedness before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy administration’s failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq, and even the Great Recession of 2008 when the U.S. economy was near collapse (Wu, 2024). In all these situations, conformity and the silencing of differing views led to horrible consequences. For example, in the Challenger disaster, despite warnings about the shuttle’s faulty O-ring by engineers, the pressure to comply with the preplanned launch date won out (Wu, 2024). Just 73 seconds after liftoff, the shuttle exploded, killing all seven crewmembers (Howell, 2022).
Te Wu, a professor at Montclair State University, is rethinking the concept of groupthink by highlighting its beneficial aspects (Wi, 2024). He believes it is especially useful in complex, urgent, and high-stake project environments, in which the time required for complex group deliberation on possible options may be infeasible (Wu, 2024). Wu (2024) provides five potential positive applications of groupthink:
- Building a Unified Vision: Groupthink helps create enthusiasm and a shared understanding of project objectives during early stages, fostering team commitment and productivity (Wu, 2024).
- Enhancing Group Cohesion: In time-restricted projects, groupthink facilitates quick consensus and decision-making, allowing teams to act quickly, therefore leading to high performance (Wu, 2024).
- Strengthening Decision Confidence: Consensus from groupthink increases the project leaders’ confidence and team morale which can aid during project initiation when direction may be unclear (Wu, 2024).
- Quick Response to External Pressures: Groupthink allows for rapid unification in response to external threats or opportunities which is essential in complex projects that require significant behavioral changes (Wu, 2024).
- Reinforcing Team Culture and Values: Groupthink can strengthen team culture by promoting consistent decision-making and problem-solving approaches, guided by well-documented project management plans (Wu, 2024).
Wu states that despite the possible upsides of groupthink, the cost of achieving unified visions should not be at the expense of demotivating team members or dismissing differing ideas (Wu, 2024). He recommends a balanced environment that values diverse perspectives but leverages collective agreement to not only mitigate the risks of groupthink but also enhance project outcomes (Wu, 2024).
Despite the greatly negative connotations associated with groupthink, do you think there can be positive outcomes from the effect? Can a balance really be found where you can understand groupthink enough to actually leverage it?
References
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Howell, E., McKelvie, C., & Stein, V. (2022, February 1). Space shuttle Challenger and the disaster that changed NASA forever. Space.com. https://www.space.com/18084-space-shuttle-challenger.html
Wu, T. (2024, April 18). Rethinking groupthink. Psychology Today. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/achieving-the-objective/202404/rethinking-groupthink
This is a very well-written and thought-provoking post! I appreciate that Wu (2024) seeks to find positive outcomes of groupthink, and I agree that some valuable positive effects include reinforcing team values, enhancing group cohesion, and quick response to external pressures. In my view, these are benefits to the group and group cohesiveness as a whole, independent of the particular decision at hand. However, I’d argue that since high group cohesiveness is thought to be an antecedent for groupthink (Janis, 1983), enhancing group cohesiveness is likely not a strong argument for the positive outcomes of groupthink.
My concern and hesitancy to fully adopt Wu’s position is related to the outcome itself. If the particular decision happens to be a good, useful, appropriate decision, then all is well. But since groupthink often results in quickly reaching a decision under pressure, and then convincing one another that this is the best decision without fully considering alternative decisions (overconfidence in collective efficacy), it may also result in a poor or even dangerous decision (Janis, 1983; Whyte, 1998). It almost seems as though the actual outcome is a matter of chance under groupthink conditions, dependent upon where the majority opinion was to begin with or how persuasive the intragroup arguments were (Gruman et al., 2017); the hindsight interpretation then becomes a positive example of groupthink if the decision was a good one or a negative example of groupthink if it was a poor decision.
I agree with Wu’s (2024) statement that this type of decision-making should not come at the expense of dismissing divergent ideas or demotivating team members. I think the real challenge becomes harnessing the positive aspects (high cohesion, making a time-sensitive decision, and group confidence in that decision) while still ensuring full consideration of all feasible ideas and alternatives to more consistently arrive at an appropriate, effective solution. Potential ways to work toward this are including group members likely to offer diverse perspectives (which will inherently decrease the high group cohesiveness) and seeking an outside review of the decision by someone knowledgeable but who wasn’t part of the group per se. It might also be useful to have an initial brainstorm session for ideas, followed by assigning each idea to a specific group member to further research, then reconvening to discuss each idea before selecting an option to proceed with (Aronson et al., 2022). Great post, thank you for sharing!
References:
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Sommers, S. R., & Page-Gould, E. (2022). Group processes: Influence in social groups. In: Social psychology (11th Ed.). Pearson.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applying social psychology to organizations. In: Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (3rd Ed.). SAGE.
Janis, I. L. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis’s groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3): 185-209.
Wu, T. (2024, April 18). Rethinking groupthink. Psychology Today. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/achieving-the-objective/202404/rethinking-groupthink
The reference article did not get copied in my previous reply so I will jusr jot it down here:
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). Availability and representativeness in judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics in decision making and problem solving. Psychological Review, 80(3), 329-351.
I found this blog post really interesting. It reminded me of my first few weeks at a new job. I remember feeling a mix of excitement and uncertainty, just like the classroom assistant. I was trying to figure out how everything worked and who everyone was.
The idea of the representativeness heuristic really resonated with me. We all tend to make assumptions about people based on our initial impressions. Sometimes these assumptions are accurate, but often they can lead to misunderstandings (Kahneman and Trevsky, 1973). I once assumed that a new coworker was shy because they didn’t talk much at first. It turned out they were just really focused on their work and didn’t feel comfortable socializing right away.
I think it’s important to be aware of the representativeness heuristic and try to avoid making assumptions too quickly. It’s better to get to know people before forming an opinion about them. I also think it’s important to be open-minded and willing to change your perspective if necessary.
I’ve found that the Tuckman stages of group development are a helpful model for understanding how teams work. It’s interesting to see how teams can go through different phases as they develop. I’ve experienced all of these stages in my own teams, and it’s been a valuable learning experience.
I think the blog post could have been even more informative if it had included some real-life examples of how the representativeness heuristic can lead to negative consequences. For example, a study by researchers at Harvard University found that people are more likely to judge a job applicant negatively if they have an accent that is different from their own. This is a clear example of how the representativeness heuristic can lead to discrimination.
Overall, I found this blog post to be insightful and informative. It’s a topic that is relevant to everyone.
Reference