Much of What You Know About Groupthink Is Wrong

"Everyone knows the concept of groupthink. A tightly knit and overconfident set of decision makers form an insular echo chamber, fail to see the big picture, and end up making disastrous decisions.

By now, most of us think we have a good sense of the sorts of conditions that cause groups to fall into this trap. But how good is that understanding?

The term "groupthink" was coined in 1952, and psychologist Irving Janis popularized it a couple of decades later when he analyzed major missteps by powerful teams, including the Kennedy administration's decision to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and the Johnson administration's decisions to escalate conflict in Vietnam. Mr. Janis described groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when [their] striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

According to this logic, a longstanding team of collaborators would be especially vulnerable to groupthink. However, it turns out that findings supporting this conclusion were based largely on a specific situation that is actually quite rare in many organizations. Participants in experiments designed to test groupthink were generally meeting one another for the first time. Eager to establish friendly relations, people were unlikely to throw shade or disrupt a good beginning with expressions of sharp criticism.

But the picture turned out to be different among more genuinely close-knit groups. When researchers looked instead at behavior in groups composed of longer-term friends, they found that friendship was associated with less, not more, groupthink. The desire for cohesion, which is strong in new groups, isn't necessarily the same thing as actual cohesion, especially in the form of personal bonds, which is often stronger in longer-term groups or teams.

 

There is an important lesson here: It is often the desire for cohesion that produces groupthink, not cohesion itself. And anything that threatens a group's sense of cohesion may trigger people's need to protect their identity and risks increasing groupthink.

 

Misunderstanding what causes groupthink means that many of the perceived causes and solutions to fight it need to be rethought.

For instance, one of the most popular antidotes for groupthink is to encourage groups to solicit external criticism -- such as bringing in outsiders or consultants to provide alternative perspectives. This can provide groups with important new information, facts that could improve their decisions. But it guarantees nothing about how they will process the information they receive. Indeed, it can backfire as a solution to groupthink if it isn't done properly.

Think about a tightly knit group you belong to. How do its members respond when a newcomer shows up? Do they welcome the outsider with open arms, eager to hear what they have to say? Or do they regard them with a degree of wariness, waiting to see how well they fit in with the group's finely tuned culture?

When groups think they are likely to come under outside scrutiny, especially if they are worried about being held responsible for poor decisions, it can produce exactly the type of threat that leads to groupthink -- a resistance rather than openness to divergent views.

Perhaps the biggest boogeyman when it comes to groupthink is a concern about charismatic leaders -- an overpowering presence suppressing all divergence and dissent. Certainly, leaders can create environments where people are reluctant to voice their views. And there is no shortage of leaders who have created a cultlike allegiance in their organizations.

 

If anything, strong and effective leadership is crucial for preventing groupthink. It takes leadership to set the terms of the discussion, create fair and inclusive parameters for disagreement, ensure criticism is shared and establish healthy norms.

 

People are more willing to speak up when, at a minimum, they believe that they won't be punished for offering divergent ideas. Ideally, dissent is valued and rewarded. Leaders have a responsibility to foster these feelings of "psychological safety."

 

Psychological safety is the reason friends feel more comfortable disagreeing than do new acquaintances. And it can be jeopardized by outsiders, however well intentioned their presence may be." [1]

1. C-Suite Strategies (A Special Report) --- Much of What You Know About Groupthink Is Wrong: Which people are most prone to forming an insular echo chamber? Probably not the people you assume.
Packer, Dominic J; Van Bavel, Jay J.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 01 Nov 2021: R.7.