groupthink

What is Groupthink?

Business / By /

Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.

ComponentDescription
DefinitionGroupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcomes. Groupthink may lead to the adoption of a consensus view, often leading to suboptimal or flawed decisions.
Symptoms– Illusion of invulnerability: Group members believe their decisions are infallible. – Collective rationalization: Ignoring warning signs or counterarguments. – Belief in inherent morality: Assuming the group’s decisions are morally correct. – Stereotyping outsiders: Viewing those outside the group as enemies. – Self-censorship: Withholding dissenting opinions. – Illusion of unanimity: Incorrectly assuming everyone agrees. – Direct pressure on dissenters: Pressuring those who voice concerns. – Mindguards: Protecting the group from dissenting information.
MetricsMetrics related to Groupthink may include “decision quality,” “level of dissent,” and “degree of group cohesion” to assess the impact on decision-making processes.
BenefitsGroup cohesion and harmony, quick decision-making in some cases, and a sense of belonging within the group.
Drawbacks– Poor decision quality. – Lack of critical thinking. – Suppression of dissenting opinions. – Ignoring potential risks or alternatives. – Decreased creativity and innovation.
ApplicationsUnderstanding Groupthink is crucial in various group decision-making contexts, such as corporate boardrooms, government organizations, and team projects. It helps in identifying and mitigating the negative consequences of group dynamics that can lead to flawed decisions.
Examples– A corporate board of directors unanimously approving a risky investment without thorough analysis due to fear of dissent. – A political group disregarding valid criticisms of their policies in order to maintain unity. – A project team failing to consider alternative solutions because the majority of members conform to one idea.

Understanding groupthink

The phenomenon, where groups arrive at a consensus that is either problematic or premature, may be driven by a particular agenda or by those who value collaboration and conflict avoidance over critical thinking. 

Groupthink was popularized by psychologist Irving Janis in a 1971 issue of Psychology Today who also performed much of the initial research on the phenomenon.

However, it is believed the term itself was coined in 1952 by urbanist and sociologist William H. Whyte Jr. who was inspired by similar concepts in George Orwell’s 1949 book Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Groupthink characteristics

Janis identified eight symptoms or traits of groupthink that caused flawed conclusions:

  1. Unquestioned beliefs – the group ignores the potential moral consequences of its decisions or actions.
  2. Rationalization – this prevents individuals from reconsidering their viewpoints which causes them to ignore any warning signs.
  3. Stereotyping – where members of the so-called “in-group” ostracize or stereotype those in the “out-group” who may oppose or challenge certain ideas.
  4. Illusions of unanimity – a belief held by superiors that every member of the group is in agreement. When it appears that everyone feels the same way, it is much harder for one individual to voice their concern.
  5. Self-censorship – similarly, those who have doubts may avoid sharing them because they assume that the group knows best.
  6. “Mindguards” – these are self-appointed individuals who ensure that contrarian viewpoints are not discussed by other group members. They may dismiss important information that contradicts popular opinion to maintain group self-esteem.
  7. Illusions of invulnerability – where overly-optimistic group members behave in a way that is risky and unjustified.
  8. Direct pressure – those who do have the courage to offer a contrarian view are pressured to conform and may be considered traitorous or disloyal if they do not.

The impact of groupthink 

The desire for team harmony and conflict avoidance is a cognitive bias that stifles creativity and individuality within a group.

In the pursuit of consensus, optimal solutions are overlooked and potential problems are underestimated.

Groupthink is toxic to organizations because it creates an undesirable corporate culture where employees with “popular” viewpoints are pitted against those who hold less popular opinions.

Groupthink also causes organizations to lose the benefits of diverse experiences and perspectives.

These are both key drivers of robust decision-making and problem-solving that considers all possible alternatives.

In contexts such as politics or the military, the consequences of groupthink are far greater. The phenomenon may lead to decisions that ignore ethical or moral dilemmas and instead focus on objectives with potential for significant collateral damage.

Drawbacks of Groupthink

Impaired Decision-Making:

  • Suppression of Dissenting Opinions: Groupthink leads to the suppression of individual opinions and critical analysis, which can result in poor decision-making.
  • Lack of Creativity and Innovation: The desire for consensus overrides the pursuit of alternative ideas or creative solutions, stifling innovation.

Risk of Poor Outcomes:

  • Potential for Faulty Decisions: Decisions made under the influence of groupthink often overlook potential risks and are not based on thorough analysis, leading to flawed outcomes.
  • Ignoring Expert Opinions: The group may ignore or undervalue input from experts or outside sources in favor of maintaining unanimity.

Psychological Impact:

  • Peer Pressure: Group members might experience intense peer pressure to conform and suppress their own doubts or differing opinions.
  • Feeling of Isolation: Individuals who hold different views may feel isolated or ostracized from the group.

Organizational Consequences:

  • Damaged Team Dynamics: Groupthink can damage team dynamics by creating an environment where open and honest communication is not encouraged.
  • Reduced Effectiveness: In the long term, groupthink can reduce the overall effectiveness and productivity of a team or organization.

When Groupthink is Likely to Occur

Situations Prone to Groupthink:

  • Highly Cohesive Groups: Groupthink is more likely in groups with strong bonds and a desire to maintain harmony.
  • Isolated Groups: Groups that are isolated from external opinions and operate in a closed environment.
  • High-Stress Situations: Circumstances that require quick decision-making under pressure are prone to groupthink, as the group may prioritize a swift consensus.

Risk Factors:

  • Directive Leadership: A leader who strongly pushes their own agenda can encourage groupthink.
  • Lack of Standard Procedures: Lack of established procedures for decision-making and problem-solving can lead to groupthink.

How to Prevent Groupthink

Strategies to Avoid Groupthink:

  1. Encourage Open Debate: Foster an environment where dissenting opinions are welcomed and encouraged.
  2. Seek External Opinions: Regularly consult with outside experts or stakeholders to bring in fresh perspectives.
  3. Appoint a Devil’s Advocate: Designate one or more individuals to intentionally challenge the group’s ideas and assumptions.
  4. Diverse Teams: Create diverse teams with a mix of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives to reduce the likelihood of uniform thinking.
  5. Anonymous Feedback Mechanisms: Use anonymous surveys or feedback tools to ensure honest and candid input from all team members.

Best Practices:

  • Leadership Awareness: Leaders should be aware of the signs of groupthink and actively work to create a more open and inclusive decision-making environment.
  • Regular Training: Conduct regular training and workshops on critical thinking and decision-making to enhance individual and group capabilities.

What to Expect from Addressing Groupthink

Improved Decision-Making and Innovation:

  • Enhanced Creativity: By preventing groupthink, teams can benefit from diverse ideas and perspectives, leading to more creative and effective solutions.
  • Better Quality Decisions: Decisions are more likely to be well-considered and balanced, taking into account various viewpoints and potential risks.

Positive Impact on Team Dynamics:

  • Increased Engagement: Team members feel more valued and engaged when their opinions are considered, leading to higher morale and job satisfaction.
  • Healthier Work Environment: Promoting open dialogue and critical thinking creates a healthier, more dynamic work environment.

In summary, while groupthink can lead to quick consensus, it often comes at the cost of critical thinking and optimal decision-making. Recognizing and actively working to prevent groupthink can significantly improve the quality of decisions, foster innovation, and enhance team dynamics.

Key takeaways:

  • Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.
  • Eight symptoms or traits of groupthink cause flawed conclusions: unquestioned beliefs, rationalization, stereotyping, illusions of unanimity, self-censorship, “mindguards”, illusions of invulnerability, and direct pressure.
  • In the workplace, groupthink stifles individual creativity, creates a toxic corporate culture, and stifles the organization’s ability to make robust decisions or solve problems. 

Key highlights about groupthink:

  • Definition and Origin: Groupthink is a phenomenon where well-intentioned individuals within a group make suboptimal decisions due to the belief that dissent is impossible or the desire to conform. This can lead to consensus without critical evaluation of alternatives.
  • Characteristics and Origin: Popularized by psychologist Irving Janis in 1971, groupthink involves groups arriving at problematic or premature consensus. It can arise from an agenda or a preference for collaboration over critical thinking. The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte Jr., inspired by George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
  • Groupthink Characteristics:
    • Unquestioned Beliefs: Group ignores moral consequences.
    • Rationalization: Prevents reconsideration of viewpoints.
    • Stereotyping: In-group ostracizes or stereotypes the out-group.
    • Illusions of Unanimity: Belief that everyone agrees, suppressing dissent.
    • Self-Censorship: Doubters avoid sharing their concerns.
    • “Mindguards”: Individuals suppress dissenting viewpoints.
    • Illusions of Invulnerability: Overly optimistic, risky behavior.
    • Direct Pressure: Pressure to conform, discouraging dissent.
  • Impact of Groupthink:
    • Stifled Creativity: Desire for harmony limits creativity and individuality.
    • Optimal Solutions Overlooked: Pursuit of consensus ignores optimal solutions and underestimates problems.
    • Toxic Corporate Culture: Fosters a culture where popular viewpoints clash with less popular opinions.
    • Loss of Diversity: Hampers diverse experiences and perspectives, crucial for robust decision-making and problem-solving.
  • Broader Consequences: In contexts like politics or the military, groupthink’s impact is more severe. It can lead to decisions disregarding ethical concerns and focusing solely on objectives, potentially causing significant collateral damage.
  • Key Takeaways:
    • Groupthink arises when consensus is reached without critical evaluation.
    • Symptoms include unquestioned beliefs, rationalization, stereotyping, illusions of unanimity, self-censorship, “mindguards,” illusions of invulnerability, and direct pressure.
    • In workplaces, groupthink suppresses creativity, creates a negative culture, and hampers effective decision-making and problem-solving.
    • In critical contexts, groupthink can lead to decisions with severe consequences, ignoring ethical considerations.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

convergent-vs-divergent-thinking
Convergent thinking occurs when the solution to a problem can be found by applying established rules and logical reasoning. Whereas divergent thinking is an unstructured problem-solving method where participants are encouraged to develop many innovative ideas or solutions to a given problem. Where convergent thinking might work for larger, mature organizations where divergent thinking is more suited for startups and innovative companies.

Critical Thinking

critical-thinking
Critical thinking involves analyzing observations, facts, evidence, and arguments to form a judgment about what someone reads, hears, says, or writes.

Biases

biases
The concept of cognitive biases was introduced and popularized by the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Biases are seen as systematic errors and flaws that make humans deviate from the standards of rationality, thus making us inept at making good decisions under uncertainty.

Second-Order Thinking

second-order-thinking
Second-order thinking is a means of assessing the implications of our decisions by considering future consequences. Second-order thinking is a mental model that considers all future possibilities. It encourages individuals to think outside of the box so that they can prepare for every and eventuality. It also discourages the tendency for individuals to default to the most obvious choice.

Lateral Thinking

lateral-thinking
Lateral thinking is a business strategy that involves approaching a problem from a different direction. The strategy attempts to remove traditionally formulaic and routine approaches to problem-solving by advocating creative thinking, therefore finding unconventional ways to solve a known problem. This sort of non-linear approach to problem-solving, can at times, create a big impact.

Bounded Rationality

bounded-rationality
Bounded rationality is a concept attributed to Herbert Simon, an economist and political scientist interested in decision-making and how we make decisions in the real world. In fact, he believed that rather than optimizing (which was the mainstream view in the past decades) humans follow what he called satisficing.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

dunning-kruger-effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability in a task overestimate their ability to perform that task well. Consumers or businesses that do not possess the requisite knowledge make bad decisions. What’s more, knowledge gaps prevent the person or business from seeing their mistakes.

Occam’s Razor

occams-razor
Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.

Lindy Effect

lindy-effect
The Lindy Effect is a theory about the ageing of non-perishable things, like technology or ideas. Popularized by author Nicholas Nassim Taleb, the Lindy Effect states that non-perishable things like technology age – linearly – in reverse. Therefore, the older an idea or a technology, the same will be its life expectancy.

Antifragility

antifragility
Antifragility was first coined as a term by author, and options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility is a characteristic of systems that thrive as a result of stressors, volatility, and randomness. Therefore, Antifragile is the opposite of fragile. Where a fragile thing breaks up to volatility; a robust thing resists volatility. An antifragile thing gets stronger from volatility (provided the level of stressors and randomness doesn’t pass a certain threshold).

Systems Thinking

systems-thinking
Systems thinking is a holistic means of investigating the factors and interactions that could contribute to a potential outcome. It is about thinking non-linearly, and understanding the second-order consequences of actions and input into the system.

Vertical Thinking

vertical-thinking
Vertical thinking, on the other hand, is a problem-solving approach that favors a selective, analytical, structured, and sequential mindset. The focus of vertical thinking is to arrive at a reasoned, defined solution.

Maslow’s Hammer

einstellung-effect
Maslow’s Hammer, otherwise known as the law of the instrument or the Einstellung effect, is a cognitive bias causing an over-reliance on a familiar tool. This can be expressed as the tendency to overuse a known tool (perhaps a hammer) to solve issues that might require a different tool. This problem is persistent in the business world where perhaps known tools or frameworks might be used in the wrong context (like business plans used as planning tools instead of only investors’ pitches).

Peter Principle

peter-principle
The Peter Principle was first described by Canadian sociologist Lawrence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that people are continually promoted within an organization until they reach their level of incompetence.

Straw Man Fallacy

straw-man-fallacy
The straw man fallacy describes an argument that misrepresents an opponent’s stance to make rebuttal more convenient. The straw man fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, defined as a flaw in the structure of an argument that renders it invalid.

Streisand Effect

streisand-effect
The Streisand Effect is a paradoxical phenomenon where the act of suppressing information to reduce visibility causes it to become more visible. In 2003, Streisand attempted to suppress aerial photographs of her Californian home by suing photographer Kenneth Adelman for an invasion of privacy. Adelman, who Streisand assumed was paparazzi, was instead taking photographs to document and study coastal erosion. In her quest for more privacy, Streisand’s efforts had the opposite effect.

Heuristic

heuristic
As highlighted by German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer in the paper “Heuristic Decision Making,” the term heuristic is of Greek origin, meaning “serving to find out or discover.” More precisely, a heuristic is a fast and accurate way to make decisions in the real world, which is driven by uncertainty.

Recognition Heuristic

recognition-heuristic
The recognition heuristic is a psychological model of judgment and decision making. It is part of a suite of simple and economical heuristics proposed by psychologists Daniel Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer. The recognition heuristic argues that inferences are made about an object based on whether it is recognized or not.

Representativeness Heuristic

representativeness-heuristic
The representativeness heuristic was first described by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The representativeness heuristic judges the probability of an event according to the degree to which that event resembles a broader class. When queried, most will choose the first option because the description of John matches the stereotype we may hold for an archaeologist.

Take-The-Best Heuristic

take-the-best-heuristic
The take-the-best heuristic is a decision-making shortcut that helps an individual choose between several alternatives. The take-the-best (TTB) heuristic decides between two or more alternatives based on a single good attribute, otherwise known as a cue. In the process, less desirable attributes are ignored.

Bundling Bias

bundling-bias
The bundling bias is a cognitive bias in e-commerce where a consumer tends not to use all of the products bought as a group, or bundle. Bundling occurs when individual products or services are sold together as a bundle. Common examples are tickets and experiences. The bundling bias dictates that consumers are less likely to use each item in the bundle. This means that the value of the bundle and indeed the value of each item in the bundle is decreased.

Barnum Effect

barnum-effect
The Barnum Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that generic information – which applies to most people – is specifically tailored for themselves.

First-Principles Thinking

first-principles-thinking
First-principles thinking – sometimes called reasoning from first principles – is used to reverse-engineer complex problems and encourage creativity. It involves breaking down problems into basic elements and reassembling them from the ground up. Elon Musk is among the strongest proponents of this way of thinking.

Ladder Of Inference

ladder-of-inference
The ladder of inference is a conscious or subconscious thinking process where an individual moves from a fact to a decision or action. The ladder of inference was created by academic Chris Argyris to illustrate how people form and then use mental models to make decisions.

Goodhart’s Law

goodharts-law
Goodhart’s Law is named after British monetary policy theorist and economist Charles Goodhart. Speaking at a conference in Sydney in 1975, Goodhart said that “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Six Thinking Hats Model

six-thinking-hats-model
The Six Thinking Hats model was created by psychologist Edward de Bono in 1986, who noted that personality type was a key driver of how people approached problem-solving. For example, optimists view situations differently from pessimists. Analytical individuals may generate ideas that a more emotional person would not, and vice versa.

Mandela Effect

mandela-effect
The Mandela effect is a phenomenon where a large group of people remembers an event differently from how it occurred. The Mandela effect was first described in relation to Fiona Broome, who believed that former South African President Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s. While Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and died 23 years later, Broome remembered news coverage of his death in prison and even a speech from his widow. Of course, neither event occurred in reality. But Broome was later to discover that she was not the only one with the same recollection of events.

Crowding-Out Effect

crowding-out-effect
The crowding-out effect occurs when public sector spending reduces spending in the private sector.

Bandwagon Effect

bandwagon-effect
The bandwagon effect tells us that the more a belief or idea has been adopted by more people within a group, the more the individual adoption of that idea might increase within the same group. This is the psychological effect that leads to herd mentality. What in marketing can be associated with social proof.

Moore’s Law

moores-law
Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years. This observation was made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 and it become a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry and has had far-reaching implications for technology as a whole.

Disruptive Innovation

disruptive-innovation
Disruptive innovation as a term was first described by Clayton M. Christensen, an American academic and business consultant whom The Economist called “the most influential management thinker of his time.” Disruptive innovation describes the process by which a product or service takes hold at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established competitors, products, firms, or alliances.

Value Migration

value-migration
Value migration was first described by author Adrian Slywotzky in his 1996 book Value Migration – How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition. Value migration is the transferal of value-creating forces from outdated business models to something better able to satisfy consumer demands.

Bye-Now Effect

bye-now-effect
The bye-now effect describes the tendency for consumers to think of the word “buy” when they read the word “bye”. In a study that tracked diners at a name-your-own-price restaurant, each diner was asked to read one of two phrases before ordering their meal. The first phrase, “so long”, resulted in diners paying an average of $32 per meal. But when diners recited the phrase “bye bye” before ordering, the average price per meal rose to $45.

Groupthink

groupthink
Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.

Stereotyping

stereotyping
A stereotype is a fixed and over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. These beliefs are based on the false assumption that certain characteristics are common to every individual residing in that group. Many stereotypes have a long and sometimes controversial history and are a direct consequence of various political, social, or economic events. Stereotyping is the process of making assumptions about a person or group of people based on various attributes, including gender, race, religion, or physical traits.

Murphy’s Law

murphys-law
Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law was named after aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy. During his time working at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949, Murphy cursed a technician who had improperly wired an electrical component and said, “If there is any way to do it wrong, he’ll find it.”

Law of Unintended Consequences

law-of-unintended-consequences
The law of unintended consequences was first mentioned by British philosopher John Locke when writing to parliament about the unintended effects of interest rate rises. However, it was popularized in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton who looked at unexpected, unanticipated, and unintended consequences and their impact on society.

Fundamental Attribution Error

fundamental-attribution-error
Fundamental attribution error is a bias people display when judging the behavior of others. The tendency is to over-emphasize personal characteristics and under-emphasize environmental and situational factors.

Outcome Bias

outcome-bias
Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.

Hindsight Bias

hindsight-bias
Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. The result of a presidential election, for example, seems more obvious when the winner is announced. The same can also be said for the avid sports fan who predicted the correct outcome of a match regardless of whether their team won or lost. Hindsight bias, therefore, is the tendency for an individual to convince themselves that they accurately predicted an event before it happened.

Read Next: Biases, Bounded Rationality, Mandela Effect, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Lindy Effect, Crowding Out Effect, Bandwagon Effect.

Main Guides:

Discover more from FourWeekMBA

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top
FourWeekMBA