Groupthink

Warning Signs of Groupthink

Janis provides six warning signs of groupthink:

• Limited discussion: The group limits discussion to just a few alternatives. These alternatives are usually the most comfortable choices available to the group.
• Ignoring risk: The group does not reevaluate its choices, even after new signs of risk become apparent.
• Ignoring alternatives: The group does not reevaluate its choices to see if it may have passed over an alternative that could provide even greater benefits.
• Ignoring advice: The group does not seek advice from relevant experts within the organization.
• Limiting focus: The group seeks facts and opinions that support its decision while ignoring information that does not.
• Failure to plan for crisis: The group fails to consider the potential consequences that might exist if its plans fail.

When these warning signs are present, groups are in danger of unequivocally supporting a counterproductive policy despite the availability of known alternatives.

Avoiding Groupthink

To avoid the potential dangers of groupthink, groups should carefully consider if consensus has come at the cost of productive conflict, accuracy, and efficiency. Productive conflict refers to the clash of opinions and the discussion of contradictory evidence. In this case, “clash” refers to healthy disagreement among group members. When a group allows productive clash, group members feel free to speak up if they disagree with a decision or potential decision. Without such productive clash, the group stops functioning as a unit. One or two individuals control the group, thereby negating the primary strength of groups—multiple perspectives. When group members choose to avoid productive clash, the quality of the group's decisions is in jeopardy.

To ensure that adequate clash exists, Carl Mann suggests group members answer four questions as part of their group deliberations:

• Is there enough evidence to warrant the conclusion?
• Is there negative evidence that rebuts the conclusion?
• Does the evidence genuinely support the conclusion?
• Does the conclusion go beyond the supporting materials?

An informed discussion that considers all points of view and carefully considers the quality of evidence available is likely to avoid making the types of seriously flawed policy decisions that continue to precipitate crises.

...