Organizational Behavior “Groupthink”

1. What do we mean by ‘Groupthink’?

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and
reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.

Groupthink - The tendency for members of a cohesive group to reach decisions without weighing
all the facts, especially those contradicting the majority opinion.

2. What is the contribution to knowledge by Irving Janis regarding ‘Groupthink’?

Irving Janis did a great deal of work in the area of group communication. He wondered why
intelligent groups of people sometimes made decisions that led to disastrous results. Janis
focused on the political arena. He studied The Bay of Pigs conflict, The Korean War, Pearl
Harbor, The conflict in Vietnam, The Cuban Missile Crisis, makings of The Marshall Plan, and
Watergate. Janis was puzzled by the inability of very intelligent people to make sound decisions.
His answer was a condition he termed "Groupthink". Janis defines groupthink as a "a quick and
easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a
cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to
realistically appraise alternative courses of action". Janis further states that "Groupthink refers to
a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-
group pressures". Groupthink can lead to bad judgments and decisions being made. It serves as a
simple way to deal with difficult issues.

3. What are the Symptoms of groupthink?

Janis has described eight symptoms of groupthink: 

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme

risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their
assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and
therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective
responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments
against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not
expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

Page |1
 Organizational Behavior “Groupthink”

8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from
information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or
decisions.

4. How could you prevent groupthink as a business graduate?

As a business graduate I have following steps which can prevent groupthink.

      a) Every member of the group must critically evaluate alternatives before decision making.

      b) The leader should provide guideline of alternatives for decision making.

      c) Every member of group should clearly define the alternatives to eachother and provide the
reason for the selection of a alternative.

      d) One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a neutral basis. 

      e) At least one member of group should play the role of devil’s advocate.

5. What are the causes of groupthink?

The cause of groupthink is isolation. Often in group situations, it is important that the decisions
being made or the actions being carried remain secret. This requires that no outside opinions or
thoughts be incorporated into the decision-making process.  Frequently, groups reach resolutions
and carry them out without conferring with any outside sources.  One result of this extreme
isolation is insulation from criticism.  This absence of criticism may lead to illusions of group
invulnerability and morality.

            The leadership of a group can also lead to groupthink, since complete control over the
group by the leader can cause an environment in which no one states their own opinions.  When
extremely rigid leadership is implemented within a group (such as occurs in the military) group
discussions are often tightly controlled.  Any dissenting opinions tend to be suppressed through
intimidation or be simply not allowing the dissenter to voice his objections.  If a leader in a
group situation makes his opinion clear at the outset of the discussions, group members will on
many occasions refrain from expressing any disagreement out of respect for the leader’s
authority. 

              Another cause of groupthink is decisional stress.  When a group is forced to make an

important decision, each individual within the group often harbors a certain amount of
insecurity.  Often without being aware, members of a group will attempt to reduce this decisional
stress through any possible means.  Since this insecurity is lessened if the decision is made
quickly and with little disagreement, the group can easily rationalize a decision because there of
the minimal amount of dissension within the group.  The positive consequences of the group’s
decision serve as the main focus, while there is a minimization of any negative
outcomes. Concentrating on minor details of group decisions or actions is a way in which the
group can overlook larger issues that may need attention.  In high pressure group decision-

Page |2
 Organizational Behavior “Groupthink”

making, attempts by members to reduce the stress associated with decision-making often results
in groupthink.

6. Establish its relationship with ‘Group Cohesiveness’.

High levels of cohesiveness decrease the amount of verbal dissension within a tight group, due to
interpersonal pressure to conform.  This high level of cohesiveness also creates self-censorship
and apparent unanimity within the group.  Normally, group dissension is necessary for good
decision-making, because it introduce different perspectives to the decision-making process.  In
the absence of this disagreement, alternative choices for action are never considered. 

7. Recent developments and critiques

In 2001, Ahlfinger and Esser described the difficulties of testing Janis' antecedants, specifically
those related to government groups, stating in abstract:

"Two hypotheses derived from groupthink theory were tested in a laboratory study which
included measures of the full range of symptoms of groupthink, symptoms of a poor decision
process, and decision quality. The hypothesis that groups whose leaders promoted their own
preferred solutions would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups with
nonpromotional leaders received partial support. Groups with promotional leaders produced
more symptoms of groupthink, discussed fewer facts, and reached a decision more quickly than
groups with nonpromotional leaders. The hypothesis that groups composed of members who
were predisposed to conform would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups
whose members were not predisposed to conform received no support. It is suggested that
groupthink research is hampered by measurement problems.

After ending their study, they stated that better methods of testing Janis' symptoms were needed.

In a broad 2005 survey of post-Janis research Robert S. Baron contends that the connection
between certain antecedents Janis believed necessary have not been demonstrated, and that
groupthink is more ubiquitous and its symptoms are "far more widespread" than Janis
envisioned. Baron' premise is "that Janis’s probing and insightful analysis of historical decision-
making was correct about the symptoms of groupthink and their relationship to such outcomes as
the suppression of dissent, polarization of attitude and poor decision quality and yet wrong about
the antecedent conditions he specified...not only are these conditions not necessary to provoke
the symptoms of groupthink, but that they often will not even amplify such symptoms given the
high likelihood that such symptoms will develop in the complete absence of intense cohesion,
crisis, group insulation, etc." As an alternative to Janis' model, Baron presents a "strong
ubiquity" model for Groupthink:

"...the ubiquity model represents more a revision of Janis’s model than a repudiation. The social
identification variable modifies Janis’s emphasis on intense-high status group cohesion as an
antecedent condition for groupthink. Similarly, low self efficacy amplifies Janis’s prior
consideration of this factor. The one major shift is that the ubiquity model assumes that when
combined, social identification, salient norms and low self efficacy are both necessary and

Page |3
 Organizational Behavior “Groupthink”

sufficient to evoke “groupthink reactions.” Such reactions include Janis’s array of defective
decision processes as well as suppressed dissent, selective focus on shared viewpoints,
polarization of attitude and action and heightened confidence in such polarized views. Note that
such elevated confidence will often evoke the feelings of in-group moral superiority and
invulnerability alluded to by Janis.

Baron says in conclusion that the pervasiveness of “groupthink phenomena” has been
underestimated by prior theoretical accounts.

Page |4
 Organizational Behavior “Groupthink”

References:
1. Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and
Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

2. Jonathan, B. Thinking and Deciding: Fourth Edition.Cambridge.

3. Spectrum IT Consulting. (2003). Groupthink: Janis, I. (1972). 

4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

5. allpsych.com/dictionary/dictionary2.html

Page |5