Groupthink Theory

GROUPTHINK THEORY

DESCRIPTION 

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized covert military support for an invasion of Cuba by a brigade of Cuban exiles who had been armed and trained in the United States. The purpose of this secret mission was to engineer the overthrow of the Cuban government in such a way that it would be perceived as an internal uprising with no U.S. involvement. The invasion was an unmitigated disaster, from the brigade’s landing at the Bay of Pigs to its capture and imprisonment by the Cuban army 2 days later. U.S. involvement in the debacle was painfully obvious and resulted inwidespread condemnation.

In retrospect, Kennedy sometimes referred “incredulously to the Bay of Pigs, wondering how a rational and responsible government could ever have become involved in so ill-starred an adventure” (Schlesinger, 1965, p. 292). Janis (1972, 1983) found himself asking the same question and wondering whether “the poor decision-making performance of the men at those White House meetings might be akin to the lapses in judgment of ordinary citizens who become more concerned with retaining the approval of the fellow members of their work group than with coming up with good solutions to the tasks at hand” (p. vii).





Using an inductive case study approach, Janis(1972, 1983) analyzed poor policy decisions madeby five American presidents: the lack of preparation for Pearl Harbor (Franklin D. Roosevelt), the invasion of North Korea (Harry S. Truman), the Bay of Pigs invasion (Kennedy), the escalation of the war in Vietnam (Lyndon B. Johnson), and the Watergate cover-up (Richard M. Nixon). On the basis of these analyses, Janis developed the theory of groupthink. Groupthink is the name given to a theory or model that was extensively developed by Irving Janis (1972) to describe faulty decision making that can occur in groups as a result of forces that bring a group together (group cohesion).



Groupthink is the name given to a theory or model that was extensively developed by Irving Janis (1972) to describe faulty decision making that can occur in groups as a result of forces that bring a group together (group cohesion).

IRVING.L.JANIS





Janis (1983) defined groupthink as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ strivings for unanimity[i.e concurrence seeking] override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action, it is the deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures”. There are three antecedent conditions must exist for groupthink to occur: high group cohesiveness, structural problems in the group, and a situational context that exerts great pressure on the group to make a decision.



1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

These conditions lead to groupthink among group members that is reflected in eight symptoms (i.e.,dynamics among group members that signal groupthink might be operating): the illusion of the group’s invulnerability (i.e., feeling invincible and that the group cannot lose). the belief in the group’s morality (i.e., assuming the group is inherently good, ignoring ethical and moral issues). the belief in the group’s morality (i.e., assuming the group is inherently good, ignoring ethical and moral issues). Stereotyped views of outsiders (i.e., holding broad, negative beliefs about out-group members). Conformity pressure (i.e., discouraging individual group members from expressing dissent).

6.

7.

8.



self-censorship (i.e., individual group members choosing not to express dissent). the illusion of unanimity (i.e., the belief that every group member agrees because dissenting opinions are not voiced). mind guards (i.e., self-appointed group members who shield the group leader from criticism or dissenting opinions). These symptoms of groupthink lead to defective decision making, including the group’s failure to consider possible alternative courses of action. The defective decision-making process results in an increased probability of arriving at an unsuccessful outcome, that is, of the group arriving at a poor/bad decision or solution.

ORGANIZATION 

Janis (1972, 1983) was able to take the same observations available to many other observers of group decision making and to frame and organize these observations in the construction of an interdisciplinary theory that is discussed and analyzed in many different fields— social psychology, political science, communications, organizational theory, management, computer science, information technology, engineering management, health care, marketing, and others (Turner & Pratkanis, 1998).

DIRECTION 





It fulfilled the second function of a theory i.e., providing research direction by suggesting new relationships among existing phenomena, thereby stimulating hypothesis testing. it concerns many possible relationships among many variables and it requires an analysis of all members of a group rather than just individual members, so it is a complex theory and of this complexity it is less hypothesis testing than cognitive dissonance theory. however, groupthink research has proceeded through the same phases of hypothesis testing as has cognitive dissonance theory—direct tests, extensions, and reformulations (Turner & Pratkanis, 1998).

INTERVENTION one of groupthink’s strengths is its fulfillment of the third function of a theory, that is, its application in interventions to improve group functioning.  Janis (1972) encouraged the application of groupthink as part of his initial presentation of the theory and later provided prescriptions for its prevention (Janis, 1983).  virtually all of the prescriptions are directed at ensuring that there is free and comprehensive consideration of all relevant information and alternatives so that concurrence-seeking tendencies (pressures) do not lead to premature and bad decisions or solutions. 

PREVENTING GROUP THINK RECOMMANDATION  Group leader should assign role of critical evaluator to each member  Leader should be impartial and not send preferences and expectation.  Organization should set up independent group to work to same problem.  Group should from time to time divide into separate subgroups to work on problem.  Each group member should discuss group decisions with trust associate.  Outside experts should be invited to group meetings to challenge group views.

At least one member should be assigned the role devil’s advocate.  Survey rival group’s warning signals  After preliminary consensus, group should hold second chance meeting. 