LEVEL 6 - GROUPTHINK

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

GROUPTHINK

STEVEN REYNOLDS steven.reynolds@cityofglasgowcollege.ac.uk

GROUP THINK

GROUPS VS TEAMS

INDEX

What could be a definition of each? What are the key differences? What are the key characterisitics of a successful group/team?

GROUPS VS TEAMS

GROUP POLARISATION

Decision making in teams is crucial to their success

Team decision making occurs through defining the problem, gathering information, discussing and evaluating alternatives, and deciding collaboratively on the appropriate course of action

PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCES

EXPLANATION

DEFINITION

RISKY SHIFT

GROUP THINK

•Illusion of invulnerability •Rationalisation •Belief in the inherent morality of the group •Negative stereotyping •Pressure on individual members to conform and reach consensus •Self-censorship •Illusion of unanimity •Emergence of ‘mind guards’

SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK

DEVILS ADVOCATE

CONSULT EXPERT

OUTSIDER

ALTERNATIVES

SUB TEAMS

DISAPPEAR!

RESERVE OPINIONS

EVALUATE

HOW TO AVOID GROUPTHINK

BAY OF PIGS

MURDER?

JIBBERISH

CONFIRMITY

Step 6: Get an outsider’s perspective: As your group begins evaluating various ideas and solutions, assign each member a task of getting an outsider’s opinion. If the solutions being discussed are sensitive, then ask them to talk to a specific and trusted leader inside the company.

Step 2: If you’re leading the group, keep your opinions to yourself: The trouble with being a leader is that your opinions have a big influence on others and timid employees will think twice before dissenting with your opinion or submitting an idea that is better than yours. If your opinions lead a discussion, you will invariably miss great opportunities to discover individual talents and strengths in your group that may prove critical to future successes.

Mind guards are a sign of groupthink, which happens when members of a group take actions to shield the group from facts or opinions that contradict the group’s consensus. This happens when people fear that sharing such facts or ideas will harm the group’s cohesion or decision-making ability. Mind guards have the ability to suppress dissenting opinions or concerns inside a group by preventing such material from being provided to the group or discouraging individuals from expressing such views. The group do not evaluate all relevant ideas or perspectives, which leads to a lack of critical thinking and independent decision-making. Mind guards also result in a situation in which the group’s decisions are not well-informed since the group does not have access to all relevant information or views.

Step 3: If you’re the group leader, consider being a no-show: Because body language is nearly impossible to hide, you don’t have to say anything for people in the group to know how you feel about a topic, so don’t give them the opportunity. Let members know you value their ideas so much that you plan to be absent from certain group meetings where your presence will excessively influence the outcome.

Risky Shift effect is stronger for competitive participants (Begum & Ahmed, 1986) Participants in a sad or morose mood also showed more tendency to risky shift (El-Hajje & Ahmed, 1997) Stronger risky shift has been found when there are more members in the group, which somewhat supports the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ explanation (Hashiguchi, 1974) However, there have been suggestions that risky shift is less likely when the decisions are real-world and significant, involving individuals of competence (Higbee, 1972)

Step 5: Thoroughly examine all alternatives: Once your group has compiled a list of ideas or solutions, submit those ideas to a standardized method of evaluation that answers questions such as: How does this idea support the goal? What are the costs? What are the risks? Etc.

One potential explanation is ‘diffusion of responsibility’ (Wallach et al., 1964) This means that the risk is shared so feels less potent for each individual, or each individual feels less responsibility for the outcomes Other explanations include the impact of more information or the persuasive influence of specific group members One problem with this is that it is not clear why this would necessarily lead to greater risk so consistently

Invulnerability is a symptom of groupthink, which happens when a group overestimates its decision-making powers and feels it is impervious to failure or bad repercussions. This might create a false sense of security and complacency inside the group, leading to unsafe or foolish decisions. Invulnerability occurs when members of a group believe that they are superior to other groups, that they have access to unique information or expertise, or that they are protected by a strong leader or external causes such as luck or divine intervention. This leads to a lack of critical thinking and independent decision-making if the group discounts or ignores evidence that contradicts their ideas or conclusions.

Step 4: Consider a team approach: If your group is large, consider randomly dividing folks into smaller groups to work on the same problem. Not only does this approach foster camaraderie between employees, it fuels a competitive atmosphere where the best ideas can win.

Step 1: Require everyone in the group to evaluate ideas critically: This step is easily performed by asking everyone in the group to take a quiet moment to jot down both pros and cons of ideas that have been submitted before they are discussed. If you are still worried about employees feeling free enough to express themselves you can use a polling app that allows people in the group to vote or comment on topics anonymously.

Early research suggested groups after discussion make riskier choices than the individual members (Stoner, 1961) Individual choices after the discussion also tend to become riskier An alternative effect is that particularly extreme individuals (e.g. very high or low risk) tend to become less extreme Risky shift effect tends to be weaker when the risks are more severe (Ridley et al., 1981)

Step 7: Consult an outside expert: If a project or solution has components that run outside the expertise of the group, consider inviting an outside expert to a meeting to participate in the discussion of the group’s proposed solutions. Outsiders often provide a refreshing change to group dynamics, and expert opinions enable everyone in the group to learn from an expert’s insights and wisdom.

Step 8: Select one person at random to be the devil’s advocate at each meeting: Once meeting attendees are all present, draw straws to see who will serve as the devil’s advocate for the meeting. The person who is chosen will be charged with “thinking like an enemy” and countering all popular ideas and opinions in the meeting in order to encourage healthy debate and test the strength of opposing arguments.