Groupthink

Irving Janis used the term groupthink to refer to a condition in which highly cohesive groups strive to reach unanimity in their decision making at the expense of adequately examining alternative solutions. Such groups desire to maintain a cohesive atmosphere in the group to the extent that members are not to “rock the boat” or “stir the waters.” The condition ultimately leads to a deterioration in decision processes that usually results in poor decisions. The groupthink hypothesis is intimately tied to how group members communicate with one another. This entry explores groupthink, identifying its antecedent conditions, corresponding symptoms, effect on decision processes and decisions, and ways the phenomenon might be prevented.

Although Irving Janis did not coin the term, his conceptualization of groupthink has had the most significant and lasting impact on those wishing to learn more about group and organizational functioning. It all started with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. In April 1961, a rebel force backed by the U.S. government made a landing at the Bay of Pigs, Cuba, in an effort to topple the newly established government of Fidel Castro. President John F. Kennedy and some of his most trusted advisers made decisions to cancel plans for additional rounds of bombings of Cuban airfields, changed the original and better landing site of the invasion force, and failed to provide air support for the rebels. The decisions doomed any hopes of the success of the invasion. A substantial number of the rebel force were killed in battle or captured and executed.

Irving Janis later claimed the Bay of Pigs disaster was one of the biggest fiascoes ever perpetrated by a government. He was bothered with the question of how groups of learned people could collectively make such bad decisions. He suggested this topic to his daughter, who was writing a term paper. Examining her research, Janis's curiosity was piqued, and he subsequently formulated the essential features of what would come to be known as the groupthink hypothesis.

There are certain characteristics that lay the foundation for groupthink. Among these antecedents are group cohesiveness, structural faults, and a provocative situational context. Cohesiveness refers to a state of mutual liking and attraction among group members; group members are amiable and united and have a desire to maintain positive relationships, and a feeling of esprit de corps is present. Structural faults may include the group's insulation from external sources of information and counsel, lack of an established tradition of impartiality on the part of the leader, lack of norms for decision-making procedures, and homogeneity of group members with regard to social background and ideology. Provocative situational contexts are the kinds that impose high levels of stress on group members. These stresses may be due to a previous or recent record of failure, perceptions that the task may be too difficult, or the belief that there is no morally correct alternative available.

Of the three antecedents, cohesiveness is believed to be primary and, when paired with one of the other two antecedents, results in a greater likelihood that the group will suffer from groupthink. When cohesion is moderate to high, and one of the other antecedents is present, group members are likely to have a concurrence-seeking tendency when making decisions. This tendency in turn is [Page 461]likely to manifest itself in the eight symptoms of groupthink outlined by

...