Groupthink in Contemporary Decision Making: A Failure to Dissent

Introduction

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.