Editor’s Note: Group Think is a psychological phenomenon where the desire for harmony in a group leads to irrational decision-making. Coined by William H. Whyte and later popularized by Irving Janis, it suppresses critical thinking and individual creativity. Key causes include high group cohesiveness, isolation, lack of impartial leadership, high stress, and homogeneity. Symptoms include illusions of invulnerability, collective rationalization, and self-censorship. Preventing Group Think involves encouraging critical evaluation, inviting outside experts, and considering alternatives. Understanding and addressing Group Think is essential for informed, balanced decisions in various contexts.
Understanding Group Think and Its Impact
To answer the question, “What is Group Think,” one must delve into the intricacies of human thought processes and group dynamics. Group Think is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. It is a method of thinking performed by a group of individuals in an effort to minimize discord and arrive at a sense of accord or agreement.
The concept of Group Think was first introduced by William H. Whyte in 1952. He used the term to describe a process that disallows the promotion of uncomfortable or dissenting views within a group. This phenomenon was later extensively studied and popularized by psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970s.
During the Group Think process, individuals will test, analyze, and evaluate the group ideas under examination. However, this process is often compromised by the overwhelming desire for cohesiveness and agreement within the group. As a result, critical thinking and individual creativity can be suppressed, leading to poor decision-making and potentially disastrous outcomes.
The Paradox of Group Think
At first glance, Group Think might seem positive because group members work together toward a common and acceptable outcome. It can create a sense of unity and strengthen group bonds. However, this apparent advantage is overshadowed by serious disadvantages.
The primary issue with Group Think is that it leads to rationalized conformity. Group members may silence their own misgivings or disagreements to maintain group harmony. This suppression of diverse viewpoints can be disadvantageous to individual group members and to the entire group as a whole. It can lead to the group overlooking critical information, ignoring potential risks, and making decisions that are not in their best interest.
Causes of Group Think
Group Think can occur for a number of different reasons:
1. High group cohesiveness: The closer group members are, the more apt the group is to engage in Group Think.
2. Isolation of the group: When a group is isolated from outside influences, it’s more likely to develop a skewed perspective.
3. Lack of impartial leadership: If the group leader is strongly in favor of a particular decision, others may be reluctant to disagree.
4. High stress situations: Under pressure, groups may rush to a consensus without fully evaluating alternatives.
5. Homogeneity of group members’ backgrounds and ideology: Similar perspectives can reinforce existing biases.
Symptoms of Group Think
Janis identified several symptoms that indicate the presence of Group Think:
1. Illusion of invulnerability: The group believes it cannot fail.
2. Collective rationalization: Members discount warnings and negative feedback.
3. Belief in inherent morality: The group believes in the rightness of their cause.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups: The group views opponents as weak or evil.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters: Those who disagree face pressure to conform.
6. Self-censorship: Members withhold dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of unanimity: The majority view is assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’: Some members protect the group from adverse information.
Other symptoms include an unquestioning attitude toward group decisions, the formation of stereotypical beliefs, and the closing off of oneself to ideas that do not support the group’s general thinking.
The Dangers of Group Think
Group Think can lead to disastrous decisions in various contexts, from business to politics. Historical examples often cited include the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Challenger space shuttle disaster, and the Enron scandal. In each of these cases, warning signs were ignored, and dissenting opinions were suppressed, leading to catastrophic outcomes.
In a business context, Group Think can result in failed products, missed market opportunities, or ethical breaches. In politics, it can lead to flawed policies or military miscalculations. On a smaller scale, it can cause team projects to fail or social groups to make poor choices.
Preventing Group Think
Recognizing the dangers of Group Think, it’s crucial to implement strategies to prevent it:
1. Encourage critical evaluation: Leaders should actively seek out differing opinions and play devil’s advocate.
2. Avoid stating preferences at the outset: Leaders should withhold their own opinions initially to avoid unduly influencing the group.
3. Set up independent groups: Having multiple teams work on the same problem can provide diverse perspectives.
4. Invite outside experts: Bringing in outsiders can challenge the group’s assumptions.
5. Assign the role of critical evaluator: Rotate this role among group members to ensure all ideas are scrutinized.
6. Consider alternatives: Always have a backup plan and thoroughly explore alternative options.
7. Hold second-chance meetings: Allow time for members to express any lingering doubts after a decision is made.
Conclusion
In essence, Group Think is a form of thinking that should be approached with caution. While group cohesion and harmony are important, they should not come at the expense of critical thinking and diverse perspectives. Instead, groups should strive to establish an atmosphere conducive to diverse ideas and forms of expression.
By understanding what Group Think is, recognizing its symptoms, and actively working to prevent it, groups can make more informed, balanced decisions. This approach not only leads to better outcomes but also fosters a more inclusive and intellectually stimulating environment for all group members.
References:
1. Whyte, W. H. (1952). The Organization Man. New York: Simon & Schuster.
2. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Irving, J. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
4. Hart, P. (1994). Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.Esser, J. K. (1998). “Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 116-141.
6.McCauley, C. (1989). “The Nature of Social Influence in Groupthink: Compliance and Internalization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 250-260.
7. “The Bay of Pigs Invasion.” (2017). The History Channel. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/bay-of-pigs-invasion
8. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron. New York: Portfolio Trade.
