In 1986, a wrong decision was made to initiate the space shuttle, Challenger. The air temperature on that day was lower than on previous launches. Soon after the start, the seals failed, causing the shuttle to explode. A cognitive bias termed ‘groupthink’ was present in the decision-making process, leading to the Challenger tragedy (Edmondson, 2008, p. 64). At the same time, the assignment of responsibilities in such a way that the entire group decided to launch, disregarding the reservations of specialists, also influenced the fatal consequences.
It is essential to remark that the symptoms of groupthink, such as rationalization and peer pressure, can be detected. In the first case, the team convinced itself that holding the launch was the best solution despite evidence to the contrary. In the second case, the participants did not consider the opinions of professional engineers. Some team members expressed concern, but the rest, through collective pressure, rejected the minority opinion. A strategy can be highlighted to evade rationalizing groupthink. It is valuable to carefully examine all alternatives, bringing together different groups of people with various backgrounds. In this way, the choice will be done according to priority, rather than to satisfy the familiar members of the team. At the same time, excluding peer pressure is to realize that the team does not always have the experience to create the right decision, and exploring help is never a bad thing (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2019, p. 136). This reinforces the importance of various perspectives and experts on different subjects involved in decision-making.
Although, this strategy can be criticized because, in a cohesive team, there is trust in the suggestions of the members. The absence of trust in newcomers can lead to disregard for expert advice. The lack of faith can be solved by setting rules of communication. The duties of each team member should be established, and open dialogue should be encouraged to resolve contentious issues (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2019, p. 140). If this does not accomplish, a third party can be brought in to help choose the right solution.
Reference List
Buchanan, D. A., and Huczynski, A. A. (2019) ‘Decision making’, in Buchanan, D. A., and Huczynski, A. A. (eds.) Organizational behaviour. London: Pearson UK, pp. 134–146.
Edmondson, A. C. (2008) ‘The competitive imperative of learning’, Harvard business review, 86(7/8), pp. 60–67.