The Disaster of Groupthink And What To Do Differently

What does a dramatic plunge in Marks & Spencer’s share price have in common with America’s shambolic attempt to invade Cuba? What unites the collapse of one of the world’s most prestigious airlines with the failure to predict one of the most infamous attacks in military history? The answer is groupthink. All of the above, from M&S’s late-’90s lurch to the farrago of the Bay of Pigs, from Swissair’s unforeseen demise to the horror of Pearl Harbour, is widely cited as classic examples of what happens when people reach a consensus without giving due thought to the alternatives.

What Is Groupthink?

The term “groupthink” was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte, a writer for Fortune magazine. Whyte described the phenomenon as “an open, articulate philosophy. A philosophy that holds that group values are both practical and right and good.”

Research into the theory began in earnest almost two decades later when Irving Janis, a psychologist at Yale University, investigated the effect of extreme stress on group cohesiveness. According to Janis, groupthink should have an “invidious connotation” because it arises from “a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgments.”

The mindset of groupthink seemingly explains unthinking conformity, which can result in disastrous decisions. Groupthink leads to disastrous decisions in several settings, from the boardroom to cults. A lack of independent thought and collective views also seems to result from social media, including Twitter and Facebook.

A worry for many organisations is that the evidence supporting a general propensity to groupthink can appear overwhelming. Managers often find the phenomenon difficult to avoid or even to solve. Encouragingly, however, new research suggests otherwise.

Shattering The Illusion Of Invulnerability

Psychology explains groupthink as confirmation bias. We exhibit bias when we attach more significance to information confirming a hypothesis we already favour and less to information contradicting it.

Greek historian Thucydides referred to it in his account of the Peloponnesian War when he wrote of people’s “habit to entrust to careless hope what they long for and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy”. In the Novum Organum, his 1620 treatise on inductive reasoning, philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon summed up the problem: “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion… draws all things else to support and agree with it.”

Almost anyone who has sat through a business meeting will have experienced something that chimes with these remarks. When a group assembles to solve a problem, the goal should be a decision of improved quality.  Solving the problem needs a variety of perspectives, which is not the case in this situation. The rush to judgment can be both rapid and reckless with hindsight.

Reducing The Threat of Groupthink

Understanding how we obtain evidence that influences our subsequent weighting could help guard against this unfortunate propensity. By structuring the decision-making process differently, might it be possible to reduce groupthink?

A study by economists from LSE and the University of Nottingham showed reverse confirmation bias when people share and consider evidence. The subjects placed much more weight on conflicting proof because they were made to realise how little they knew. The “illusions of invulnerability” often melted away in the heat of authentic debate and dialogue.

Discussion Is Key

It is important to stress that these are remarkably subtle effects. They underline the age-old axiom that we frequently succeed only in raising further questions and striving to find answers. How we interpret such conclusions will undoubtedly require further research. However, the implications are perhaps more straightforward for businesses and their managers.

Janis posited that a critical method of defending groupthink should be to cast at least one group member as devil’s advocate. The benefits of this strategy were further highlighted only recently in a Stanford Graduate School of Business study that recommended every team feature a contrarian who is “constructive and careful in communication” and engenders “healthy conflict”.

Our research seems to confirm – dare we say it? Groupthink thrives in the absence of genuine deliberation. Ultimately, the lesson is that it is good to talk at its simplest.

How to Recognise Groupthink and What to Do About It

Groupthink occurs when a group prioritises harmony and conformity over critical thinking, often leading to poor decision-making. Recognising groupthink is crucial for promoting a healthy, collaborative environment. Below, we’ll explore how to use groupthink and, more importantly, what steps can be taken to mitigate its impact.

How to Recognise Groupthink

Groupthink can be subtle, but several signs may indicate it is happening. Recognising these signs early can prevent negative outcomes and encourage more innovative and balanced discussions.

1. Pressure to Conform

Suppose group members feel pressure to conform to the dominant opinion without voicing their concerns. In that case, this is a vital sign that groupthink members may feel uncomfortable expressing dissent or presenting alternative perspectives, fearing rejection or being labelled uncooperative.

2. Lack of Critical Evaluation

When group members fail to evaluate proposals and decisions critically, it’s often a symptom of groupthink. Groupthinkers seem shallow, with few probing questions or challenges, so the group may focus more on reaching a consensus quickly than evaluating all options thoroughly.

3. Illusion of Invulnerability

A group that believes it is immune to failure or criticism may be experiencing groupthink. This false sense of agreement can lead to overconfidence and poor decision-making, as the group ignores potential risks or adverse outcomes.

4. Rationalisation of Decisions

Groupthink is likely at play when a group starts rationalising poor decisions, dismissing objections or criticism with weak justifications. Groupthink considers alternative views, dismissing critiques that might disrupt the consensus.

5. Suppression of Dissenting Views

Groupthink can lead to active suppression of dissenting voices. If certain members feel their opinions are unwelcome or silenced, the group may prioritise agreement over a healthy exchange of ideas.

6. Stereotyping Outsiders

Another hallmark of groupthink is the tendency to stereotype those outside the group, especially those with differing opinions. Labelling external critics as uninformed or misguided helps reinforce the group’s cohesion but stifles diverse thinking.

7. Collective Rationalisation

This occurs when group members collectively justify their decisions, even when presented with evidence that suggests otherwise. They might downplay risks or exaggerate the potential for success, minimising internal concerns.

8. Illusion of Unanimity

Groupthink often creates an illusion of unanimity, where everyone appears to agree. Silence is interpreted as agreement, even if individuals have reservations. The absence of open debate is a significant red flag.

9. Self-Censorship

Group members may avoid expressing their doubts or criticisms because they don’t want to disrupt the group harmony. This self-censorship further reinforces the false impression that everyone agrees with the prevailing view.

10. Direct Pressure on Dissenters

If individuals expressing differing opinions are subjected to direct pressure to conform or are marginalised, it indicates groupthink. This pressure can be subtle or overgroupthinking and can discourage any further opposition.

What to Do About Groupthink

Once groupthink is identified, it is essential to locate groupthink effects. Below are strategies to promote a more open, critical, and collaborative decision-making environment.

1. Encourage Open Dialogue

Creating a culture of open communication is essential in combating groupthink. Encourage all group members to voice their opinions and objections. Leaders should foster an environment where dissent is not only allowed but actively encouraged.

2. Appoint a Devil’s Advocate

Assigning someone to play the role of devil’s advocate can help break the conformity of groupthink. This individual is tasked with questioning decgroupthinkoposing alternatives and ensuring all potential risks are discussed, thus preventing the group from becoming overly confident in its conclusions.

3. Break into Smaller Groups

Sometimes, breaking the larger group into smaller, independent teams can stimulate more diverse thinking. Smaller groups often feel more comfortable discussing alternative perspectives and raising concerns that might otherwise be suppressed in a larger setting.

4. Bring in External Opinions

Inviting outside experts or consultants to offer fresh perspectives can help disrupt groupthink. These outsiders may challenge assumptions the groupthink took for granted, offering insights the group may have missed.

5. Foster an Inclusive Environment

Diverse teams tend to experience less groupthink. Ensure that your group is composed of individualthinkaried backgrounds and perspectives. This diversity will help to introduce different viewpoints and challenge the tendency to conform.

6. Focus on Objective Criteria

When making decisions, encourage the group to base choices on objective criteria rather than emotions or a desire for consensus. This can help keep the group focused on what matters most, reducing the risk of making decisions based on incomplete or biased information.

7. Revisit and Reevaluate Decisions

To prevent groupthink from influencing the outcome, periodic groupthink and reevaluate decisions. Ask the group to assess whether the decision makes sense given any new information or developments.

8. Avoid Group Polarization

Group polarisation happens when members of a group take more extreme positions than they would as individuals. Encourage moderation and nuanced thinking by reminding the group that most complex problems do not have simple, one-sided solutions.

9. Train Leadership to Detect groupthink

Leaders should be trained to recognise the symptoms of groupthink and take steps to counter it. By modelling these behaviours, leagroupthinket sets the tone for open dialogue and critical thinking.

10. Use Anonymous Feedback Tools

In some cases, individuals may still feel uncomfortable sharing dissenting opinions openly. Implementing anonymous feedback tools can encourage honest opinions without fear of retribution. This can help surface concerns that might otherwise be silenced.

Conclusion

Groupthink can stifle creativity, lead to poor decision-making, and prevent the group from fully considering alternative perspectives. By recognising the warning signs and taking active steps to foster a more open and critical environment, teams can make better, more informed decisions. Encouraging open dialogue, appointing a devil’s advocate, and embracing diverse opinions are ways to combat the dangers of groupthink and foster a culture of innovation and collaboration.