Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Groupthink

Groupthink refers to the process that leads a group of capable and talented members to render a poor, often disastrous, group decision. The term was coined by Irving Janis in 1972 as a result of his investigations of famously bad group decisions in recent history, most notably the decision by President John F. Kennedy and his cabinet to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1960. Kennedy's cabinet, arguably the best educated in American history, recommended that Kennedy send a squad of Cuban dissidents to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro. The dissidents were poorly trained and armed with World War I surplus arms, and they had been sent in a leaking boat. The mission was so badly executed that, by the time the squad arrived at the bay, Castro's troops were waiting for them, took them hostage, and ransomed them back to Kennedy. More recently, authors have identified a number of other real-world situations that may well have resulted from groupthink: the decision to launch the Challenger space shuttle despite engineers' warnings that a launch was not wise, the decision to alter the formula for Coca-Cola despite the fact that it was the best-selling soft drink in the world, and a series of promotional campaigns by Burger King that produced hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and contributed to its losing market share in the fast food industry.

Precursors of Groupthink

The phenomena that act as precursors to groupthink are many, but they can be grouped into three distinct categories. Structural faults refer to flaws that are inherent within the group and that affect the decision-making process: insulation from outside opinion; active advocacy of a particular option by the group leader; toleration of options that have not been rigorously analyzed; and lack of members who have diverse viewpoints and approaches to problem solving. High cohesiveness, while often a desirable feature of groups, can also act to suppress criticism and dissension within the group. Finally, external pressure to act, exerted by outside agents, can lead group members to favor a quick decision instead of a carefully analyzed one. When groupthink occurs, individual group members display some telltale traits: ostracism of dissenters, false perceptions of consensus, interpretation of silence as agreement with the prevailing viewpoint, a tendency to rationalize, and a sense of invulnerability.

It is crucial to note that the mere existence of these features does not guarantee that a poor decision will result. Other factors may act to shake the group out of a groupthink mindset, or the choice option that the group is oriented toward may in fact be the appropriate course of action to take. Janis simply argued that, if the above factors are present, groupthink could occur, but it will not necessarily occur. If one is associated with a group that seems to favor an objectively bad decision, one would want to determine if these factors are indeed present, but mere observation that they are present is not by itself cause for concern.

Research on Groupthink

Groupthink is a difficult topic to study, because it was originally intended as a descriptive, after-thefact model for explaining an event that had already occurred. Of course, if the poor decision has already been made, unless explicit recordings of the entire group process exist there is no way for researchers to determine conclusively exactly how the decision was rendered. Further, it is very hard to simulate groupthink conditions in a laboratory. Finally, the model as a whole is sufficiently complex that, even if a real group could be observed in the process of making a decision, there are more aspects of the process that would have to be carefully observed than researchers could reasonably manage. As a result, there exist very few scientific tests of groupthink. The research that does exist has not always been in support of Janis's propositions. In fact, to date the only proposition that has relatively clear support is the notion that insulation from outside opinion is problematic. Decision quality can be improved by obtaining input from individuals who are not group members and who have no stake in the quality of the decision. If such individuals are not readily available, the group members can employ a devil's advocacy technique under which one member presents realistic arguments against the favored position, and forces other group members to defend the position against these criticisms. If the position cannot be credibly defended, it is abandoned or another choice option is submitted to the same attack. Devil's advocacy has been shown to positively impact decision quality.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading