Groupthink
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.
Groupthink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
The Science Behind Making Decisions
http://www.pri.org/science/science-behind-making-decisions1407.html
Groupthink
http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html
Groupthink is a concept that was identified by Irving Janis that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions. Learn more about groupthink and then complete the interactive exercise at the end of the discussion.
Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision.
Some negative outcomes of groupthink include:
Examining few alternatives
Not being critical of each other's ideas
Not examining early alternatives
Not seeking expert opinion
Being highly selective in gathering information
Not having contingency plans
Some symptoms of groupthink are:
Having an illusion of invulnerability
Rationalizing poor decisions
Believing in the group's morality
Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision
Exercising direct pressure on others
Not expressing your true feelings
Maintaining an illusion of unanimity
Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information
Some solutions include:
Using a policy-forming group which reports to the larger group
Having leaders remain impartial
Using different policy groups for different tasks
Dividing into groups and then discuss differences
Discussing within sub-groups and then report back
Using outside experts
Using a Devil's advocate to question all the group's ideas
Holding a "second-chance meeting" to offer one last opportunity to choose another course of action
Groupthink
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm
Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.
Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
The group should be made aware of the causes and consequences of group think.
The leader should be neutral when assigning a decision-making task to a group, initially witholding all preferences and expectations. This practice will be especially effective if the leaders consistently encourages an atmosphere of open inquiry.
The leader should give high priority to airing objections and doubts, and be accepting of criticism.
Groups should always consider unpopular alternatives, assigning the role of devil's advocate to several strong members of the group.
Sometimes it is useful to divide the group into two separate deliberative bodies as feasibilities are evaluated.
Spend a sizable amount of time surveying all warning signals from rival group and organizations.
After reaching a prelimiary consensus on a decision, all residual doubts should be expressed and the matter reconsidered.
Outside experts should be included in vital decision making.
Tentative decisions should be discussed with trusted colleagues not in the decision-making group.
The organization should routinely follow the administrative practice of establishing several independent decision-making groups to work on the same critical issue or policy.