Abstract
This chapter explores the persistent relevance of groupthink in collective decision-making dynamics. It delves into the seminal work of psychologists Solomon Asch and Irving Janis, highlighting its enduring impact on various domains, including politics, the military, corporate boardrooms, and everyday meetings. Understanding the symptoms and consequences of groupthink is crucial for improving decision-making in contemporary society. Groupthink describes the tendency of closely-knit groups to prioritise consensus over rational decision-making, leading to hasty agreements without proper evaluation. The study emphasises the importance of constructive conflict, challenges the notion of conflict-free meetings, and explores strategies to mitigate groupthink, including fostering collaboration, appointing devil's advocates, and promoting leadership that encourages open dialogue.
TopIntroduction
Solomon Asch believed that the inquiry into the limitations on individuals' opinions and attitudes imposed by social forces was particularly relevant in 1955. While Asch was worried about the lack of independence and autonomy when faced with group pressure, Irving Janis questioned how individually intelligent people could act foolishly when deciding collectively in the 1970s. Back to the future, individuals, groups, and communities continue to thrive or suffer based on these very same social influences.
William Whyte coined the term groupthink, but it gained popularity during the 1970s when social psychologist Irving Janis argued that certain closely-knit groups had a higher likelihood of making erroneous decisions (Houghton, 2015; Sibony, 2020). Groupthink is when a group prioritises consensus over rational decision-making, leading to premature agreement on a course of action without critical evaluation of all available options (Ahlfinger & Esser, 2001). The phenomenon is primarily attributed to the infamous and much-debated failures resulting from poor strategic choices, including the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, Pearl Harbor, the Market Garden, British Airways, Marks & Spencer, and the Ford Motor Company Edsel launch incidents. During the politically charged era of the Cold War, it is unsurprising that groupthink researchers prioritised studying the effectiveness of political and military decision-making. Fortunately, the research focus shifted towards business, and scholars began investigating the strategic decisions made by corporate boards and management teams. The idea of groupthink, stemming from social psychology, has undergone extensive study in various fields, including organisational theory, communication studies, management, sports, cults, politics, and military operations, both through research and real-life examples.
As social creatures, humans instinctively rely on group decisions to increase their chances of survival and success. In contemporary societies, this takes place in various settings, such as governments, companies, law firms, school boards, labour unions, religious institutions, and international organisations (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). Research shows that we now spend more time in meetings than ever before (Kalkstein, 2019). As Sunstein and Hastie (2015) put it, the main purpose of assigning a group of people to contribute to meetings is to outperform the quality of the few bests. However, unproductive meetings can lead to dissatisfaction at work and a waste of time. It takes conflict and discomfort to reach a good decision (Sibony, 2020). However, in many organisations, a successful meeting is often perceived as one without disagreement or debate. According to Janis, groupthink occurs when a cohesive ingroup becomes so focused on seeking an agreement that they ignore realistic assessments and other options (Janis, 2008; Griffin, 1991). Hart (1991) acknowledged the usefulness of reaching a consensus in team decision-making; however, concurrence-seeking becomes excessive—hence, groupthink—when it takes place too early and in too restrictive a way. This could imply that consensus is reached without critical thinking or considering potential outcomes and other options.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Devil's Advocate: A role-playing technique that helps individuals challenge prevailing assumptions and identify potential weaknesses in ideas.
Groupthink: The term groupthink is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency for members of a group to conform to a particular viewpoint or course of action, often resulting in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making.
Cohesive Group: A cohesive group is one where the members have worked together for many years, are familiar with each other, and have grown through the ranks of the corporate program, resulting in a high degree of camaraderie among them.
Constructive Conflict: The term refers to a type of disagreement, argument, or debate that is carried out in a positive and productive manner.
Minority Dissent: Minority dissent is genuine when a small group express opposing views or opinions within a larger group or organisation without external influences.
Participative Leadership: A style of leadership that involves all team members in the decision-making process by encouraging collaboration, creativity, and innovation and allowing team members to feel valued and empowered.