Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unit 2 - More On Groupthink
Unit 2 - More On Groupthink
Unit 2 - More On Groupthink
This article provides additional insight into the challenges created by the group decision
process and provides tips for avoiding groupthink.
A leader is one who has the ability to influence members of a team to work effectively
towards their goals. Among the antecedents of groupthink, it is the leader’s role that has
received the most empirical attention (Ahlfinger & Esser, 2001). Leana (1985) has found that
leader behavior strongly influences the number of alternative solutions proposed and
discussed by groups and the actual final decisions made by them. Cognitively complex and
open leaders are more receptive to new information and are thus more flexible about their
beliefs than their cognitively closed and simple counterparts (Ziv, 2008). While Janis’ (1972)
model of groupthink emphasizes that members get influenced by the leader’s suggestions
because they identify with the leader’s values and goals, Courtright suggests it’s more of a
compliance issue (Courtright, 1977).
Leader-Member Relationship
Leaders do not treat all the members of the team equally and maintain distinct relationships
with different members (Thompson, 2008). This can lead to ingroups and outgroups being
formed within a team, impacting group cohesiveness. Though Janis (1972) has linked high
cohesiveness to groupthink symptoms, Leana (1985) found that cohesiveness has a positive
effect in the information gathering stage of decision-making with these “concurrence
seeking ingroups” (p. 15) being more watchful in their information gathering which may or
may not affect later stages of decision-making. A double-edged sword, group cohesiveness
can be affected by leader-member relationships and leaders should be mindful of this fact.
Use of Devil's Advocate role: Studies have proved that groups using
the Devil’s Advocacy approach significantly outperformed those that
didn’t (Chen et al., 1996). The Devil's Advocate role is that of a person
who takes a position for the sake of fostering argument and conflict
and is one of the oldest tools that can be used to mitigate the
groupthink bias.
Use the Six Thinking Hats approach: In the early stages of problem
solving, it is imperative to explore the solution space, without
narrowing down too quickly. To delve deeper leaders can introduce
the ‘Six Thinking Hats’ approach that enhances mental flexibility and
encourages the team to take a more divergent path (de Bono, 1985).
The metaphor of Thinking Hats is attributed to the six “distinct
cognitive orientations, each with its own focus, its territory of
predilection, its strengths, weaknesses and blind spots” (Varvoglis,
2003, p.7).
Use of experts: When an expert is present, groups with directive
leaders make better decisions than groups with non-directive
leaders”(Smith, 2004, p.46). Better training of leaders in the use of
experts could be vital to the decision making process (Smith, 2004).
The presence of an expert can reduce the insulation of the group from
the outside world.
Refrain from stating opinion: The leader should hold back his/her
personal opinions on the outcome and encourage the team members
to openly air theirs. This engenders an atmosphere of open inquiry and
impartiality.
Conclusion
Examples of groupthink can be found in historic events such as the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, Bay
of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster and the Enron-Arthur
Anderson scandal. (Thompson, 2008) In each of these examples, leadership style played a
key role in enhancing groupthink conditions. Ironically, the role of leadership is also pivotal
in ensuring that teams escape the potential pitfall of groupthink by adopting certain
practices that mitigate groupthink. Some of these practices have been discussed below.
Studies have found that group leaders who are high in power
motivation foster an atmosphere that is detrimental to group decision-
making. In an experiment conducted on college students, Fodor and
Smith (1982) discovered that people with low scores on power
motivation shared more information with the group and also
considered more options before narrowing down on a decision. Though
Janis’ groupthink model does not explicitly mention it, leaders can use
legitimate, referent and expert power to dole out rewards and
punishments and in that affect the decision-making process (Flowers,
1977).
Closed leaders do not encourage member participation, state their
opinions at the outset and do not encourage divergent opinions from all
group members (Neck & Moorhead, 1995). Since closed leaders
establish their personal views early in the decision-making process,
they reduce the discussion of more alternatives, which can also lead to
the fallacies of Common information effect and Hidden Profile.
It has been found that an effective leader is one who has an open
outlook and can don different hats, such as those of a consultant,
adviser, and facilitator to meet the requirements of the situation. A
good leader establishes a climate that is conducive to expression of
both feelings and ideas, and is an antithesis of a closed leader (Neck &
Moorhead, 1995). Open leadership styles negate concurrence seeking
tendencies by encouraging diversity of viewpoints and by promoting a
“group norm of open inquiry into alternative courses of action” (Janis,
1982 as cited in Neck & Moorhead, 1995).
Bay of Pigs vs. Cuban Missile Crisis: This is an example of when the
same group succumbed to groupthink in one account (Bay of Pigs) and
not in the other (Cuban Missile Crisis). While in the Bay of Pigs’
decision-making phase President Kennedy’s closed leadership style
had an effect in that he stated his initial position forcefully, in the other
case he turned his stance to that of a more open leader, emphasizing
the need to canvas alternative solutions. President Kennedy even kept
away from some of the meetings in order to reduce bias due to his
presence (Neck & Moorhead, 1995).
By analyzing two consecutive decisions made by the same group of executives at National
Broadcasting Company (NBC) Neck (1996) explored the role leadership played in enhancing
groupthink in the first case and mitigating it in the second. When Johnny Carson, the 30-
year host of The Tonight Show (NBC’s flagship late-night television show), retired, the NBC
executive group was faced with two decisions. Who would take over from Carson: Jay Leno
or David Letterman? The second decision involved determining what to do with the late
night star that didn’t take over the show.
In the first decision, all the antecedents of Janis’ groupthink model were present. The
decision-making group, led by Bob Wright (President of NBC), was cohesive, insulated from
outside opinion, homogeneous and under stress to make the right decision. Wright’s view
was that Leno would be a better host and he actively voiced his opinion at the outset, “…
NBC had established over 30 years an audience that expected certain things, and Jay Leno
looked like the perfect successor to that, while David Letterman remained the ideal
performer for the 12:30 show.” No one in the group challenged the leader’s view and NBC
chose Leno over Letterman. This decision proved disastrous for NBC as Letterman accepted
a contract with CBS for his Late Show and competed head to head with Leno’s show and
won the competition in both ratings and advertising dollars.
The second decision was regarding what to do with Letterman since they chose Leno for the
Tonight Show. In this case all the antecedents of groupthink were present except two: leader
preference for a certain outcome and group insulation. Bob Wright maintained a neutral
position and encouraged all the members to speak up and the presence of experts checked
the insulation problem. This led to a thorough evaluation of a wide range of criteria and
careful weighing of associated costs and risks. Analysis of the second decision yields
information that proved that groupthink decision-making defects did not occur, despite the
presence of some antecedents (Neck, 1996).
This study proves that leader behavior and the presence of experts are important factors in
moderating and mitigating other existing antecedents and symptoms of Groupthink in team
decision-making.