Groupthink - Knowledge

772:

significant main effect of cohesiveness on groupthink." Park also concludes that research does not support Janis' claim that cohesion and leadership style interact to produce groupthink symptoms. Park presents a summary of the results of the studies analyzed. According to Park, a study by Huseman and Drive (1979) indicates groupthink occurs in both small and large decision-making groups within businesses. This results partly from group isolation within the business. Manz and Sims (1982) conducted a study showing that autonomous work groups are susceptible to groupthink symptoms in the same manner as decisions making groups within businesses. Fodor and Smith (1982) produced a study revealing that group leaders with high power motivation create atmospheres more susceptible to groupthink. Leaders with high power motivation possess characteristics similar to leaders with a "closed" leadership style—an unwillingness to respect dissenting opinion. The same study indicates that level of group cohesiveness is insignificant in predicting groupthink occurrence. Park summarizes a study performed by Callaway, Marriott, and Esser (1985) in which groups with highly dominant members "made higher quality decisions, exhibited lowered state of anxiety, took more time to reach a decision, and made more statements of disagreement/agreement". Overall, groups with highly dominant members expressed characteristics inhibitory to groupthink. If highly dominant members are considered equivalent to leaders with high power motivation, the results of Callaway, Marriott, and Esser contradict the results of Fodor and Smith. A study by Leana (1985) indicates the interaction between level of group cohesion and leadership style is completely insignificant in predicting groupthink. This finding refutes Janis' claim that the factors of cohesion and leadership style interact to produce groupthink. Park summarizes a study by McCauley (1989) in which structural conditions of the group were found to predict groupthink while situational conditions did not. The structural conditions included group insulation, group homogeneity, and promotional leadership. The situational conditions included group cohesion. These findings refute Janis' claim about group cohesiveness predicting groupthink.

989:, a Swiss airline company that was thought to be so financially stable that it earned the title the "Flying Bank". The authors argue that, among other factors, Swissair carried two symptoms of groupthink: the belief that the group is invulnerable and the belief in the morality of the group. In addition, before the fiasco, the size of the company board was reduced, subsequently eliminating industrial expertise. This may have further increased the likelihood of groupthink. With the board members lacking expertise in the field and having somewhat similar background, norms, and values, the pressure to conform may have become more prominent. This phenomenon is called group homogeneity, which is an antecedent to groupthink. Together, these conditions may have contributed to the poor decision-making process that eventually led to Swissair's collapse. 1034:. Koerber and Neck suggest that three groupthink symptoms can be found in the decision-making process of the MLUA. First, the umpires overestimated the power that they had over the baseball league and the strength of their group's resolve. The union also exhibited some degree of closed-mindedness with the notion that MLB is the enemy. Lastly, there was the presence of self-censorship; some umpires who disagreed with the decision to resign failed to voice their dissent. These factors, along with other decision-making defects, led to a decision that was suboptimal and ineffective. 594: 174: 531:: High-stake decisions can create tension and anxiety; group members may cope with this stress in irrational ways. Group members may rationalize their decision by exaggerating the positive consequences and minimizing the possible negative consequences. In attempt to minimize the stressful situation, the group decides quickly and allows little to no discussion or disagreement. Groups under high stress are more likely to make errors, lose focus of the ultimate goal, and use procedures that members know have not been effective in the past. 1009:. The negative impact of groupthink took place during the 1990s as both companies released globalization expansion strategies. Researcher Jack Eaton's content analysis of media press releases revealed that all eight symptoms of groupthink were present during this period. The most predominant symptom of groupthink was the illusion of invulnerability as both companies underestimated potential failure due to years of profitability and success during challenging markets. Up until the consequence of groupthink erupted they were considered 506:: Leaders control the group discussion, by planning what will be discussed, allowing only certain questions to be asked, and asking for opinions of only certain people in the group. Closed-style leadership is when leaders announce their opinions on the issue before the group discusses the issue together. Open-style leadership is when leaders withhold their opinion until a later time in the discussion. Groups with a closed-style leader are more biased in their judgments, especially when members had a high degree of certainty. 751:, where discussion with like-minded people drives an outcome further to an extreme than any of the individuals favored before the discussion, he recommends creating heterogeneous groups which contain people with different points of view. Sunstein also points out that people arguing a side they do not sincerely believe (in the role of devil's advocate) tend to be much less effective than a sincere argument. This can be accomplished by dissenting individuals, or a group like a 486:: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent. Janis noted that the unity of group members was mere illusion. Members may disagree with the organizations' decision, but go along with the group for many reasons, such as maintaining their group status and avoiding conflict with managers or workmates. Such members think that suggesting opinions contrary to others may lead to isolation from the group. 472:: Cohesiveness is the main factor that leads to groupthink. Groups that lack cohesiveness can of course make bad decisions, but they do not experience groupthink. In a cohesive group, members avoid speaking out against decisions, avoid arguing with others, and work towards maintaining friendly relationships in the group. If cohesiveness gets to such a level that there are no longer disagreements between members, then the group is ripe for groupthink. 1145: 1116:

attractiveness of group members might be the most prominent factor in causing poor decisions. Turner and Pratkanis (1991) suggest that from social identity perspective, groupthink can be seen as a group's attempt to ward off potentially negative views of the group. Together, the contributions of these scholars have brought about new understandings of groupthink that help reformulate Janis' original model.

1159: 1090:

relevant information about the fiascos have surfaced over the years, a reexamination of the case studies is appropriate and necessary. He argues that new evidence does not support Janis' view that groupthink was largely responsible for President Kennedy's and President Johnson's decisions in the Bay of Pigs Invasion and U.S. escalated military involvement in the

776:

occurs. The studies of groupthink and groupthink antecedents reveal a mixed body of results. Some studies indicate group cohesion and leadership style to be powerfully predictive of groupthink, while other studies indicate the insignificance of these factors. Group homogeneity and group insulation are generally supported as factors predictive of groupthink.

937:. This was significant because a civilian, non-astronaut, high school teacher was to be the first American civilian in space. The space shuttle was perceived to be so safe as to make this possible. NASA's engineering and launch teams rely on teamwork. To launch the shuttle, individual team members must affirm each system is functioning nominally. 707:, another phenomenon that is detrimental when working in groups. When organizations fall into the Abilene paradox, they take actions in contradiction to what their perceived goals may be and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve. Failure to communicate desires or beliefs can cause the Abilene paradox. 585:

societies, individuals are hesitant to voice dissent, deferring to leaders' preferences in making decisions. Furthermore, as Tanzania is a collectivist society, community interests supersede those of individuals. The combination of high power distance & collectivism creates optimal conditions for groupthink to occur.

650:

Tight-knit groups may appear to make decisions better because they can come to a consensus quickly and at a low energy cost; however, over time this process of decision-making may decrease the members' ability to think critically. It is, therefore, considered by many to be important to combat the effects of groupthink.

158:

that are senior level need individuals to be independent in their thinking. There is a positive correlation found between outstanding executives and decisiveness (Kelman). Groupthink also prohibits an organization from moving forward and innovating if no one ever speaks up and says something could be done differently.

347:" leaders often have beliefs which are very far from matching reality and which can become more extreme as they are encouraged by their followers. The predilection of many cult leaders for abstract, ambiguous, and therefore unchallengeable ideas can further reduce the likelihood of reality testing, while the intense 1017:. During 1998–1999 the price of Marks & Spencer shares fell from 590 to less than 300 and that of British Airways from 740 to 300. Both companies had previously been prominently featured in the UK press and media for more positive reasons, reflecting national pride in their undeniable sector-wide performance. 335:, management, strategy, counseling, and marketing. One can most likely explain this lack of follow-up in that group research is difficult to conduct, groupthink has many independent and dependent variables, and it is unclear "how to translate theoretical concepts into observable and quantitative constructs". 357:"Groupthink by Compulsion roupthink at least implies voluntarism. When this fails, the organization is not above outright intimidation. In , refusal by the new hires to cheer on command incurred consequences not unlike the indoctrination and brainwashing techniques associated with a Soviet-era gulag." 731:

using "vigilant appraisal". During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group

695:

Diversity of all kinds is also instrumental in preventing groupthink. Individuals with varying backgrounds, thought, professional & life experiences etc. can offer unique perspectives & challenge assumptions. In a 2004 study, a diverse team of problem-solver outperformed a team consisting of

644:

It has been thought that groups with the strong ability to work together will be able to solve dilemmas in a quicker and more efficient fashion than an individual. Groups have a greater amount of resources which lead them to be able to store and retrieve information more readily and come up with more

453:

When a group exhibits most of the symptoms of groupthink, the consequences of a failing decision process can be expected: incomplete analysis of the other options, incomplete analysis of the objectives, failure to examine the risks associated with the favored choice, failure to reevaluate the options

275:

Janis set the foundation for the study of groupthink starting with his research in the American Soldier Project where he studied the effect of extreme stress on group cohesiveness. After this study he remained interested in the ways in which people make decisions under external threats. This interest

223:

Groupthink was Whyte's diagnosis of the malaise affecting both the study and practice of management (and, by association, America) in the 1950s. Whyte was dismayed that employees had subjugated themselves to the tyranny of groups, which crushed individuality and were instinctively hostile to anything

1124:

According to a theory many of the basic characteristics of groupthink – e.g., strong cohesion, indulgent atmosphere, and exclusive ethos – are the result of a special kind of mnemonic encoding (Tsoukalas, 2007). Members of tightly knit groups have a tendency to represent significant aspects of their

789:

Groupthink can have a strong hold on political decisions and military operations, which may result in enormous wastage of human and material resources. Highly qualified and experienced politicians and military commanders sometimes make very poor decisions when in a suboptimal group setting. Scholars

775:

Overall, studies on groupthink have largely focused on the factors (antecedents) that predict groupthink. Groupthink occurrence is often measured by number of ideas/solutions generated within a group, but there is no uniform, concrete standard by which researchers can objectively conclude groupthink

719:

is an example of this. Before the scandal had occurred, a meeting took place where they discussed the issue. One of Nixon's campaign aides was unsure if he should speak up and give his input. If he had voiced his disagreement with the group's decision, it is possible that the scandal could have been

686:

The devil's advocate in a group may provide questions and insight which contradict the majority group in order to avoid groupthink decisions. A study by Ryan Hartwig confirms that the devil's advocacy technique is very useful for group problem-solving. It allows for conflict to be used in a way that

157:

Some methods that have been used to counteract group think in the past is selecting teams from more diverse backgrounds, and even mixing men and women for groups (Kamalnath). Groupthink can be considered by many to be a detriment to companies, organizations and in any work situations. Most positions

1115:

Scholars are challenging the original view of groupthink proposed by Janis. Whyte (1998) argues that a group's collective efficacy, i.e. confidence in its abilities, can lead to reduced vigilance and a higher risk tolerance, similar to how groupthink was described. McCauley (1998) proposes that the

968:

on board to broadcast a live lesson, and the possible mention by president Ronald Reagan in the State of the Union address, were opportunities NASA deemed critical to increasing interest in its potential civilian space flight program. The schedule NASA set out to meet was, however, self-imposed. It

149:

to "go along with the crowd" for fear of "rocking the boat" or of how their speaking out will be perceived by the rest of the group. Group interactions tend to favor clear and harmonious agreements and it can be a cause for concern when little to no new innovations or arguments for better policies,

1025:

Recent literature of groupthink attempts to study the application of this concept beyond the framework of business and politics. One particularly relevant and popular arena in which groupthink is rarely studied is sports. The lack of literature in this area prompted Charles Koerber and Christopher

576:

and alternative strategies to problem solving, it is likely that groupthink will be avoided even in a highly cohesive group. This means that high cohesion will lead to groupthink only if one or both of the other antecedents is present, situational context being slightly more likely than structural

1992:

leaders often have beliefs which are very far from matching reality and which can become more extreme as they are encouraged by their followers. The predilection of many cult leaders for abstract, ambiguous, and therefore unchallengeable ideas can further reduce the likelihood of reality testing,

1047:

Researcher Robert Baron (2005) contends that the connection between certain antecedents which Janis believed necessary has not been demonstrated by the current collective body of research on groupthink. He believes that Janis' antecedents for groupthink are incorrect, and argues that not only are

885:

on December 7, 1941, is a prime example of groupthink. A number of factors such as shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the lack of precaution taken by U.S. Navy officers based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese messages and they discovered that Japan was arming

580:

A 2018 study found that absence of a tenured Project leader can also create conditions for groupthink to prevail. Presence of an ‘experienced’ project manager can reduce the likelihood of groupthink by taking steps like critically analysing ideas, promoting open communication, encouraging diverse

3213:

Interestingly, several groupthink symptoms (i.e., group identity), such as the illusion of invulnerability, belief in inherent group morality, and illusion of unanimity, produced unexpected results: (a) negative correlations with concurrence seeking and defective decision making and (b) positive

1904:

If the committee's other conclusions are as outdated as its etymology, we're all in trouble. 'Groupthink' (one word, no hyphen) was the title of an article in Fortune magazine in March 1952 by William H. Whyte Jr. ... Whyte derided the notion he argued was held by a trained elite of Washington's

584:

It was found that among people who have Bicultural identity, those with highly integrated Bicultural identity as opposed to less integrated were more prone to groupthink. In another 2022 study in Tanzania, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions come into play. It was observed that in high power distance

2033:

Groupthink by Compulsion roupthink at least implies voluntarism. When this fails, the organization is not above outright intimidation. In , refusal by the new hires to cheer on command incurred consequences not unlike the indoctrination and brainwashing techniques associated with a Soviet-era

1106:

traits such as believing in the group's moral superiority, were linked to less concurrence seeking, better decision-making, better team activities, and better team performance. This study also showed that the relationship between groupthink and defective decision making was insignificant. These

1094:, respectively. Both presidents sought the advice of experts outside of their political groups more than Janis suggested. Kramer also argues that the presidents were the final decision-makers of the fiascos; while determining which course of action to take, they relied more heavily on their own 1089:

Later scholars have re-assessed the merit of groupthink by reexamining case studies that Janis originally used to buttress his model. Roderick Kramer (1998) believed that, because scholars today have a more sophisticated set of ideas about the general decision-making process and because new and

699:

Psychological safety, emphasized by Edmondson & Lei and Hirak et al., is crucial for effective group performance. It involves creating an environment that encourages learning and removes barriers perceived as threats by team members. Edmondson et al. demonstrated variations in psychological

649:

in that it takes groups more time to come to a decision and requires that people make compromises with each other. However, it was not until the research of Janis appeared that anyone really considered that a highly cohesive group could impair the group's ability to generate quality decisions.

567:

Although it is possible for a situation to contain all three of these factors, all three are not always present even when groupthink is occurring. Janis considered a high degree of cohesiveness to be the most important antecedent to producing groupthink, and always present when groupthink was

771:

Park (1990) found that "only 16 empirical studies have been published on groupthink", and concluded that they "resulted in only partial support of his hypotheses". Park concludes, "despite Janis' claim that group cohesiveness is the major necessary antecedent factor, no research has shown a

763:

Testing groupthink in a laboratory is difficult because synthetic settings remove groups from real social situations, which ultimately changes the variables conducive or inhibitive to groupthink. Because of its subjective nature, researchers have struggled to measure groupthink as a complete

1068:

Aldag and Fuller (1993) argue that the groupthink concept was based on a "small and relatively restricted sample" that became too broadly generalized. Furthermore, the concept is too rigidly staged and deterministic. Empirical support for it has also not been consistent. The authors compare

1993:

while the intense milieu control exerted by cults over their members means that most of the reality available for testing is supplied by the group environment. This is seen in the phenomenon of 'groupthink', alleged to have occurred, notoriously, during the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

1048:

they "not necessary to provoke the symptoms of groupthink, but that they often will not even amplify such symptoms". As an alternative to Janis' model, Baron proposed a ubiquity model of groupthink. This model provides a revised set of antecedents for groupthink, including

687:

is most-effective for finding the best solution so that members will not have to go back and find a different solution if the first one fails. Hartwig also suggests that the devil's advocacy technique be incorporated with other group decision-making models such as the

141:" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the " 1098:

of the situations than on any group-consenting decision presented to them. Kramer concludes that Janis' explanation of the two military issues is flawed and that groupthink has much less influence on group decision-making than is popularly believed.

873:, which took place just one year later in October 1962. In the latter crisis, essentially the same political leaders were involved in decision-making, but this time they learned from their previous mistake of seriously under-rating their opponents. 249:

becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of

2810:

Callaway, Michael R.; Marriott, Richard G.; Esser, James K., Oct 1985, Effects of dominance on group decision making: Toward a stress-reduction explanation of groupthink, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 49(4), 949–952.

351:

exerted by cults over their members means that most of the reality available for testing is supplied by the group environment. This is seen in the phenomenon of 'groupthink', alleged to have occurred, notoriously, during the Bay of Pigs

254:. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures. 959:

case was subject to a more quantitatively oriented test of Janis's groupthink model performed by Esser and Lindoerfer, who found clear signs of positive antecedents to groupthink in the critical decisions concerning the launch of the

214:

Groupthink being a coinage – and, admittedly, a loaded one – a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity – it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a

270:

there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against

1081:, which integrates new findings from groupthink literature and alters aspects of groupthink itself. The primary difference between the GGPS model and groupthink is that the former is more value neutral and more political. 3681: 3639: 850:, attempted to present their objections to the plan, the Kennedy team as a whole ignored these objections and kept believing in the morality of their plan. Eventually Schlesinger minimized his own doubts, performing 743:; he recommends explicitly asking for each person's opinion, either during the meeting or afterwards in one-on-one sessions. Sunstein points to studies showing groups with a high level of internal socialization and 49:

outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without

691:

to find and evaluate alternative solutions. The main idea of the devil's advocacy technique is that somewhat structured conflict can be facilitated to not only reduce groupthink, but to also solve problems.

818:" were all factors that gave rise to the occurrence of groupthink. Political case studies of groupthink serve to illustrate the impact that the occurrence of groupthink can have in today's political scene. 125:

disaster (the failed invasion of Castro's Cuba in 1961) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as his two prime case studies. Later studies have evaluated and reformulated his groupthink model.

89:

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as

342:" critics of Twitter point to the predominance of the hive mind in such social media, the kind of groupthink that submerges independent thinking in favor of conformity to the group, the collective" 1953:

critics of twitter point to the predominance of the hive mind in such social media, the kind of groupthink that submerges independent thinking in favor of conformity to the group, the collective.

905:"The Japanese would never dare attempt a full-scale surprise assault against Hawaii because they would realize that it would precipitate an all-out war, which the United States would surely win." 1077:; they argue that, in each case, the model incites great interest and further research that, subsequently, invalidate the original concept. Aldag and Fuller thus suggest a new model called the 98:" in the U.S. political context or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude). However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate 1916:

Pol, O., Bridgman, T., & Cummings, S. (2022). The forgotten ‘immortalizer’: Recovering William H Whyte as the founder and future of groupthink research. Human Relations, 75(8): 1615-1641.

2823:

Carrie, R. Leana (1985). A partial test of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of group cohesiveness and leader behavior on defective decision making, "Journal of Management", vol. 11(1), 5–18.

296:. He concluded that in each of these cases, the decisions occurred largely because of groupthink, which prevented contradictory views from being expressed and subsequently evaluated. 952:

grounded space shuttle flights for nearly three years. Ironic that this particular flight was to be a demonstration showing confidence in the safety of the space shuttle technology.

700:

safety based on work type, hierarchy, and leadership effectiveness, highlighting its importance in employee development and fostering a culture of learning within organizations.

553:: Group members are more concerned with efficiency and quick results than with quality and accuracy. Time pressures can also lead group members to overlook important information. 3704: 3662: 747:

are more prone to bad investment decisions due to groupthink, compared with groups of investors who are relative strangers and more willing to be argumentative. To avoid

977:

In the corporate world, ineffective and suboptimal group decision-making can negatively affect the health of a company and cause a considerable amount of monetary loss.

165:, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process. 3481:

Mullen, B.; Anthony, T.; Salas, E.; Driskell, J. E. (1994). "Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis".

2798:

Fodor, Eugene M.; Smith, Terry, Jan 1982, The power motive as an influence on group decision making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 42(1), 178–185.

969:

seemed incredible to many that an organization with a perceived history of successful management would have locked itself into a schedule it had no chance of meeting.

3401: 500:: This can promote the development of unique, inaccurate perspectives on issues the group is dealing with, which can then lead to faulty solutions to the problem. 869:

Janis argued the fiasco that ensued could have been prevented if the Kennedy administration had followed the methods to preventing groupthink adopted during the

732:

up into various sub-groups, to partially break the group cohesion. Kennedy was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion.

2245:

Aamodt, M. G. (2016). Group behavior, terms, and conflict. Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

1550: 2552:

Available from ABI/INFORM Collection; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Closed Collection. (2030111073)

2107:

Available from ABI/INFORM Collection; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Closed Collection. (2030111073)

1493: 802:, to the effect of groupthink. More recently, Dina Badie argued that groupthink was largely responsible for the shift in the U.S. administration's view on 319:

and others. Despite the popularity of the concept of groupthink, fewer than two dozen studies addressed the phenomenon itself following the publication of

1107:

findings mean that in the right circumstances, groupthink does not always have negative outcomes. It also questions the original theory of groupthink.

2206: 3371: 964:. The day of the launch was rushed for publicity reasons. NASA wanted to captivate and hold the attention of America. Having civilian teacher 231:(Yale University) pioneered the initial research on the groupthink theory. He does not cite Whyte, but coined the term again by analogy with " 4438: 3723: 3456: 859: 601:

As observed by Aldag and Fuller (1993), the groupthink phenomenon seems to rest on a set of unstated and generally restrictive assumptions:

338:

Nevertheless, outside research psychology and sociology, wider culture has come to detect groupthink in observable situations, for example:

1622: 948:

s rocket boosters ignored warnings that cooler temperature during the day of the launch could result in failure and death of the crew. The

1129:

and this has a predictable influence on their group behavior and collective ideology, as opposed to what happens when they are encoded as

454:

initially rejected, poor information research, selection bias in available information processing, failure to prepare for a back-up plan.

1702: 911:"Even if the Japanese were foolhardy to send their carriers to attack us , we could certainly detect and destroy them in plenty of time." 675:

The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.

3511: 1078: 830:

of April 1961 was the primary case study that Janis used to formulate his theory of groupthink. The invasion plan was initiated by the

3576:"Avoiding groupthink: Whereas weakly identified members remain silent, strongly identified members dissent about collective problems" 133:

issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional

1373: 568:

occurring; however, he believed high cohesiveness would not always produce groupthink. A very cohesive group abides with all group

3148:"Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How well has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time?" 653:

According to Janis, decision-making groups are not necessarily destined to groupthink. He devised ways of preventing groupthink:

2724: 657:

Leaders should assign each member the role of "critical evaluator". This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.

3443:

Hogg, M. A.; Hains, S. C. (1998). "Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink".

3899: 3575: 2998: 914:"No warships anchored in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor could ever be sunk by torpedo bombs launched from enemy aircraft." 901:

The U.S. Navy and Army in Pearl Harbor also shared rationalizations about why an attack was unlikely. Some of them included:

154:

because group activities and group projects in general make it extremely easy to pass on not offering constructive opinions.

145:"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Members of a group can often feel under 1030:(MLUA) to stage a mass resignation in 1999. The decision was a failed attempt to gain a stronger negotiating stance against 219:

conformity – an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.

4426: 3977: 3187:

Choi, Jin Nam; Kim, Myung Un (1999). "The organizational application of groupthink and its limitations in organizations".

2474:"Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures" 3432: 494:: The group is organized in ways that disrupt the communication of information, or the group carelessly makes decisions. 4191: 2161:"An analysis of groupthink and decision making in a collectivism culture: the case of a public organization in Tanzania" 1642: 323:, between the years 1972 and 1998. This was surprising considering how many fields of interests it spans, which include 3880: 3946: 3927: 3851: 3832: 3813: 3360: 3339:

Baron, R. S. (2005). "So right it's wrong: groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making".

3125: 2020: 1979: 1940: 1886: 1801: 1763: 949: 307:

in 1982, the concept of groupthink was used to explain many other faulty decisions in history. These events included

3619: 572:; but whether or not groupthink arises is dependent on what the group norms are. If the group encourages individual 1027: 863: 399: 3226:

Whyte, G. (1998). "Recasting Janis's Groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes".

3104:

Baron, R. (2005). "So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making".

4321: 2600: 1562: 1532: 858:

and the Cubans by failing to question the CIA about its many false assumptions, including the ineffectiveness of

281: 4421: 2910: 245:

I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when

663:

Leaders should absent themselves from many of the group meetings to avoid excessively influencing the outcome.

4326: 1727: 1288: 3724:"Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink" 537:: These can lead to low self-esteem, resulting in agreement with the group for fear of being seen as wrong. 2513:"Understanding Psychological Safety in Health Care and Education Organizations: A Comparative Perspective" 4549: 4524: 4483: 4241: 2229: 1965: 1183: 839: 17: 1102:

Groupthink, while it is thought to be avoided, does have some positive effects. Choi and Kim found that

898:

was taking measures in the event that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories were usurped.

4539: 4493: 4281: 2207:"Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes" 2012: 1026:

Neck to begin a case-study investigation that examined the effect of groupthink on the decision of the

1817:'t Hart, P. (1998). "Preventing groupthink revisited: Evaluating and reforming groups in government". 4705: 4488: 4416: 4276: 2874:

Badie, D. (2010). "Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US policy shift toward Iraq".

1855:

McCauley, C. (1989). "The nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization".

1323: 1213: 843: 3382: 4695: 4498: 3970: 3746: 1338: 1318: 1312: 1010: 933: 908:"The Pacific Fleet concentrated at Pearl Harbor was a major deterrent against air or naval attack." 173: 1917: 985:

Aaron Hermann and Hussain Rammal illustrate the detrimental role of groupthink in the collapse of

764:

phenomenon, instead frequently opting to measure its particular factors. These factors range from

150:

outcomes and structures are called to question. (McLeod). Groupthink can often be referred to as

4619: 4458: 4160: 2679:

Cline, R. J. W. (1990). "Detecting groupthink: Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity".

2617:

Flowers, M.L. (1977). "A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's groupthink hypothesis".

1439: 1198: 432: 277: 3465: 3214:

correlations with both internal and external team activities and with reported team performance.

4463: 4346: 4216: 3512:"Group decision fiascoes continue: Space Shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework" 2824: 2812: 2799: 1368: 1303: 1228: 882: 631:

Groupthink prevents these benefits due to structural faults and provocative situational context

328: 3566: 3077:

Koerber, C. P.; Neck, C. P. (2003). "Groupthink and sports: An application of Whyte's model".

2255: 1494:"Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory" 4567: 4562: 4301: 4148: 4143: 3261:

McCauley, C. (1998). "Group dynamics in Janis's theory of groupthink: Backward and forward".

2764:

Manz, C. C.; Sims, H. P. (1982). "The potential for "groupthink" in autonomous work groups".

1721: 1208: 1203: 1031: 1014: 807: 99: 74: 62: 3542: 2434: 4597: 4529: 4351: 4341: 4336: 4316: 4261: 4211: 2450: 2379: 1353: 1238: 1218: 1178: 870: 847: 831: 827: 811: 791: 728: 285: 237: 200: 142: 122: 2472:

Hirak, Reuven; Peng, Ann Chunyan; Carmeli, Abraham; Schaubroeck, John M. (February 2012).

2435:"Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct" 441:

to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".

8: 4690: 4602: 4363: 4286: 4221: 4186: 4100: 3963: 3860: 3466:"Groupthink in academia: Majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid" 2368:"Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers" 1463: 1308: 1278: 1268: 1223: 679: 593: 121:. Janis published an influential book in 1972, which was revised in 1982. Janis used the 2383: 2273: 412:

those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

4700: 4577: 4534: 4473: 4375: 4251: 4105: 3802: 3781: 3606: 3534: 3498: 3313: 2963: 2891: 2781: 2661: 2289: 2087: 2079: 1891: 1752: 1669: 1586:

Turner, M.; Pratkanis, A. (1998). "A social identity maintenance model of groupthink".

1524: 1401: 1248: 1243: 1002: 748: 666:

The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.

468: 263: 205: 182: 162: 3352: 3117: 2410: 2367: 2122:"An upside to bicultural identity conflict: Resisting groupthink in cultural ingroups" 672:

Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.

4612: 4557: 4385: 4256: 4196: 4089: 4010: 3942: 3923: 3895: 3876: 3847: 3828: 3809: 3804:

Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-policy Decisions and Fiascoes

3598: 3594: 3562: 3538: 3502: 3424: 3356: 3317: 3278: 3243: 3204: 3169: 3121: 2994: 2955: 2887: 2853: 2785: 2747: 2665: 2644:

Schafer, M.; Crichlow, S. (1996). "Antecedents of groupthink: a quantitative study".

2582: 2578: 2532: 2493: 2454: 2415: 2397: 2348: 2340: 2301: 2293: 2180: 2141: 2016: 1975: 1936: 1834: 1797: 1790: 1759: 1754:

Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes

1603: 1516: 1348: 1164: 1130: 1126: 965: 799: 716: 688: 332: 324: 316: 103: 66: 58: 51: 3610: 2926:… failure could result in "a catastrophe of the highest order–loss of human life." … 2895: 2091: 1528: 4572: 4468: 4395: 4370: 4331: 4176: 4133: 4064: 3773: 3738: 3696: 3654: 3590: 3526: 3490: 3452: 3416: 3348: 3305: 3270: 3235: 3196: 3159: 3113: 3086: 3056: 3029: 2986: 2947: 2883: 2845: 2773: 2739: 2688: 2653: 2626: 2574: 2524: 2512: 2485: 2446: 2405: 2387: 2332: 2320: 2285: 2221: 2172: 2133: 2071: 1864: 1826: 1664: 1627: 1595: 1508: 1406: 1383: 1188: 1053: 195: 178: 110: 2528: 2473: 2336: 2046: 480:: Group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual freedom of expression. 4644: 4592: 4582: 4356: 4155: 2489: 2006: 1969: 1930: 1283: 1173: 1049: 1006: 895: 851: 835: 724: 704: 646: 542: 476: 421: 118: 46: 3658: 3379:

Proceedings of the 2003 Association for Business Communication Annual Convention

2990: 2657: 2630: 2225: 4710: 4587: 4508: 4400: 4266: 4246: 4236: 4047: 3742: 3700: 3530: 3296:

Tsoukalas, I. (2007). "Exploring the microfoundations of group consciousness".

3200: 2777: 2511:

Edmondson, Amy C.; Higgins, Monica; Singer, Sara; Weiner, Jennie (2016-01-02).

2256:

Facilitating problem solving: A case study using the devil’s advocacy technique

2137: 1882: 1868: 1378: 1258: 1150: 1103: 1070: 998: 938: 815: 803: 790:

such as Janis and Raven attribute political and military fiascoes, such as the

557: 348: 293: 134: 3470:

The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy (Independent Institute)

3457:

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199805/06)28:3<323::AID-EJSP854>3.0.CO;2-Y

3090: 3060: 3033: 2692: 2176: 1932:

Bloggerati, Twitterati: How Blogs and Twitter are Transforming Popular Culture

890:

in the Pacific Ocean. Washington took action by warning officers stationed at

4684: 4639: 4478: 4433: 4380: 4296: 4201: 4057: 3825:

Decision making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment

3680:

Tetlock, P. E.; Peterson, R. S.; McGuire, C.; Chang, S. J.; Feld, P. (1992).

3640:"Identifying victims of groupthink from public statements of decision makers" 3494: 3309: 3208: 2985:, Springer Praxis Books in Space Exploration, Praxis, 2005, pp. 99–146, 2959: 2586: 2565:

Harvey, Jerry B. (1974). "The abilene paradox: The management of agreement".

2536: 2497: 2458: 2401: 2344: 2297: 2184: 2145: 2121: 1388: 1363: 1293: 1273: 1233: 1057: 997:

Another example of groupthink from the corporate world is illustrated in the

961: 645:

alternative solutions to a problem. There was a recognized downside to group

569: 146: 3553:

O'Connor, M. A. (Summer 2003). "The Enron board: The perils of groupthink".

2392: 2160: 4649: 4634: 4503: 4311: 4181: 4112: 4095: 4042: 4001: 3602: 3420: 3274: 3239: 3164: 3147: 2849: 2836:

Raven, B. H. (1998). "Groupthink: Bay of Pigs and Watergate reconsidered".

2743: 2419: 2352: 2305: 1830: 1599: 1512: 1333: 1193: 891: 855: 367: 312: 308: 235:" and similar terms that were part of the newspeak vocabulary in the novel 228: 114: 91: 38: 3428: 3282: 3247: 3173: 3047:

Eaton, Jack (2001). "Management communication: the threat of groupthink".

2857: 1838: 1607: 1520: 605:

The purpose of group problem solving is mainly to improve decision quality

449:— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. 390:

of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

4669: 4624: 4138: 4074: 3892:

Groupthink versus High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations

3020:

Hermann, A.; Rammal, H. G. (2010). "The grounding of the "flying bank"".

1551:"Expanding the groupthink explanation to the study of contemporary cults" 1328: 1091: 1074: 795: 640:

Group pressures towards consensus lead to concurrence-seeking tendencies.

289: 232: 130: 4306: 4291: 4052: 4031: 3986: 2967: 2258:, Conference Papers - National Communication Association, published in 2083: 1358: 1343: 1298: 1253: 1095: 755:

that is expected to pursue an alternative strategy or goal "for real".

744: 660:

Leaders should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.

408: 95: 70: 42: 34: 3873:

In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business

3785: 2439:

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

61:

but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of

4654: 4080: 4037: 4020: 4016: 3939:

Beyond Groupthink: Political Group Dynamics and Foreign Policy-Making

1263: 838:

administration took over, it "uncritically accepted" the plan of the

740: 736: 637:

An illusion of well-being is presumed to be inherently dysfunctional.

445: 3920:

Groupthink in Government: a Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure

3682:"Assessing political group dynamics: A test of the groupthink model" 2951: 2938:

Hart, Paul't (June 1991). "Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink".

2911:"ROGER BOISJOLY AND THE CHALLENGER DISASTER: The Double-Edged Sword" 2075: 821: 4659: 4117: 3777: 2917:. The Novum: Science, Technology, and Society at South Dakota Mines 986: 894:, but their warning was not taken seriously. They assumed that the 752: 462:

Irving Janis identified three antecedent conditions to groupthink:

387: 3844:

Groupthink or Deadlock: When do Leaders Learn from their Advisors?

3620:"Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory: A literary review" 1792:

Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes

1144: 305:

Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes

4607: 4390: 4271: 2105:

Reaves, J. A. (2018). ".A Study of Groupthink in Project Teams".

2062:

Hart, Paul't (1991). "Irving L. Janis' "Victims of Groupthink"".

581:

perspectives, and raising team awareness of groupthink symptoms.

573: 262:

The main principle of groupthink, which I offer in the spirit of

138: 3722:

Turner, M. E.; Pratkanis, A. R.; Probasco, P.; Leve, C. (1992).

3402:"Alive and well after 25 years: a review of groupthink research" 3372:"NASA and the Columbia disaster: Decision-making by groupthink?" 2550:

Reaves, J. A. (2018). "A Study of Groupthink in Project Teams".

2321:"Leadership, Thought Diversity, and the Influence of Groupthink" 2008:

Corporate Failure by Design: Why Organizations are Built to Fail

4664: 4629: 4231: 4069: 1918:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00187267211070680

1716:(6): 43–46, 74–76. Archived from the original on April 1, 2010. 373:

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

241:

by George Orwell. He initially defined groupthink as follows:

4206: 4025: 3955: 1133:(which is common in formal and more loose group formations). 1063: 27:

Psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people

3079:

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

2510: 113:

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by

3721: 3679: 2471: 928: 866:, and the inability of Castro to quell internal uprisings. 634:

Groupthink prevention methods will produce better decisions

78: 3480: 992: 3936: 3180: 2319:

Cleary, Michelle; Lees, David; Sayers, Jan (2019-06-10).

1426:

Leadership Glossary: Essential Terms for the 21st Century

678:

At least one group member should be assigned the role of

2159:

Tarmo, Crecencia Godfrey; Issa, Faisal H. (2021-01-01).

2057: 2055: 1974:. Oxford University Press (published 2006). p. 42. 425:

of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

380:

creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

3911:

Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter

2260:

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal

758: 608:

Group problem solving is considered a rational process.

516:

Homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology

45:

in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional

2262:, Number 10, 2010, pp 17-32, accessed 2 November 2021 2052: 682:. This should be a different person for each meeting. 3409: