Groupthink Concept Definition Term Paper

Groupthink is a system of thought whereby the members of a given group are blinded by their cohesion and the need to agree on all or most matters leading to the absence to consider alternative lines of thought and courses of action that may have the potential to give better results (Janis 1972, pp.9).In most cases, the choices made by people who engage in groupthink end up leading the group into trouble, and a careful analysis of other available choices that they dismissed as inadequate without deep examination turn out to be the better options. In life, groupthink exists in so many areas of life and across all age groups (Janowitz 1966, pp.11-13). But it is more prevalent amongst young people especially teenagers. In this research paper, the causes of groupthink will be looked into. Also, the characteristics and symptoms of groupthink will be examined as well as the possible applications. Other vital areas of groupthink that this paper will take into consideration are the advantages and disadvantages of groupthink and the ways to prevent or minimize this way of thinking in society.

Causes of Groupthink

The causes of groupthink are many and varied. The first cause of groupthink is lack of exposure for the concerned group. What this means is that the group is restricted by circumstances to a single space leading to the inability of the group to access more information and therefore more alternatives to think about in their decision-making process. An example of this is a school in which the teacher has prohibited the students in a class from reading any other book apart from the book that he has recommended. If these students are asked a question or given a task, it is unlikely that they will give a point of view that is different from the one that is covered in the book that their teacher has recommended. This groupthink is a product of lack of exposure to different points of view.

Apart from the above, groupthink is also caused by traditions of partisanship in decision making. If a group of people is used to doing things in a way that favors their side only, it becomes difficult for successive generations to move out of this mentality of remaining blind to alternatives. Therefore any time this group is confronted by a situation, in which they are supposed to make choices, they will end up making a similar choice as a group because there is a long-running tradition of not listening to something other than their own. This is especially common in politics where political parties that are narrow in perspective try to block their members from looking at more alternatives out of the fear of the fact that these members will find their party wanting and move to the more open and progressive alternative.

Leaving the above aside, the presence of a unifying factor is another key cause of groupthink (Tuckman, 1965, pp.384-388). This unifying factor can be in form of a catastrophe or a scare that will end up making a group of people huddle together and try as much as possible to front a united face in the presence of the scare. For example, if a country is attacked by another, the leaders in office at that particular time become popular. This is especially true if they try to retaliate or issue threats to the attacker. This happens even though most of these leaders are not good for the people due to corruption and other evils. The issue here is that the attack creates a rallying point for the people who come together and tend to forge a united front. Most of the decisions made at such times have a high degree of unanimity; a phenomenon that shows how groupthink takes form in the face of a scare.

Also, the presence of commanding leadership is a big incentive for groupthink. Leaders who tend to give directives to their followers are known to instill a degree of intimidation and fear in the followers. In such cases, the fearful followers always try to come to a common stand for several reasons ranging from trying to create a power center for protection to please the leader. It is therefore not uncommon to come across groups that engage in groupthink because their leaders are both assertive and authoritative.

Another element that is responsible for groupthink is group uniformity. In this case, the uniformity is in form of race, tribe, education level, sexual orientation, age, gender, hair type, region, political ideology, the month of birth among other qualities that can be shared by a group of people. When three, four, or more people share any of these qualities, the chances that they will tend to think as groups are very high. For example, despite the unconventional nature of homosexuality, it is difficult to come across a gay man who opposes fellow gay men who are pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriages. In the same manner, people who come from the same region will exhibit more groupthink than people who come from different regions. This is true to all the other attributes that can produce some form of dichotomy in character when examined (Schafer& Crichlow 1996, pp.416-419).

Characteristics of Groupthink

Certain features are common in groupthink cases. To begin with, groupthink is characterized by a lack of examination of the selected option. The decision to take it is mostly made in haste, and with emotionalism, leading to a scenario where the crucial factors are not examined to identify weaknesses and strengths. Besides that, there is a partial investigation into the available alternatives. The partial look is carried out just for the sake. Therefore it is not deep enough to make the group identify the possible strengths that this alternative may have compared to the one they have picked or they are planning to pick. Another characteristic that is closely related to the aspect of not looking at available alternatives in a more comprehensive manner is the inadequate attention paid to the aims and goals of the undertaking. It is commonly understood that for one to be able to know the right choice to make in a situation, the situation has to be examined impartially and clearly (McCauley 1989, pp.250-255). But given that the group is only interested in its choice, attention is focused only on the aims that correspond to the choice that the group is intending to take.

In addition to the above, it is common for groups that engage in groupthink to avoid a critical examination of holes in the preferred choice. Under normal circumstances, a choice that has been made is supposed to be looked at from all angles to identify any possible mistakes so that it is discarded if it cannot be rectified. This does not happen in the case of groupthink because the blind faith in their choice prevents the group from carrying out this reevaluation process. Groupthink is also characterized by the haphazard search for information or sometimes the absence of a search for data on any of the choices to be made because the group is already set on picking a certain alternative. Then there is the glaring absence of a plan B or an emergency choice in case the selected option turns out to be unworkable.

Symptoms of groupthink

There are indicative signals which can assist in the identification of groupthink in a group of people. First, if there is pressure on members to abide by the common route taken by most members, then it is time to start healing the problem of groupthink in this group of people. Also, a group that has succumbed to the groupthink mentality will operate with a sense of moral superiority in whatever that the group takes part in. This means that anyone trying to offer suggestions on the possibility of the other alternatives working better for the group will be dismissed as not being morally equal to the group to begin guiding them on what to do. This is also closely related to the feeling of solid strength with the ability to overcome any hurdle. This is however an illusion because the inability of the team to look at all the available options before making a choice shows that the team is deficient and vulnerable. It is also not surprising to find the members of a group that engages in groupthink dismissing other groups or people and resorting to substandard means of defending their ideas from criticism (Janis 1972, pp.197-204).

Applications of groupthink

Groupthink can be applied in some areas either negatively or positively. In both cases, areas where decision-making is supposed to be quick and eventless present the best places where groupthink can be applied.

Positive Applications of Groupthink

Groupthink works very well in times of military campaigns. This applies both to the attacking army as well as the attacked. For the attacker, the battle cry is not supposed to be subjected to too much debate as this can alert the enemy forces leading to a preemptive strike. Therefore the best way is to issue an order and it is followed swiftly by everyone in the group. For the army that is being attacked, groupthink works marvelously well since a single shout of retaliation is enough to whip all the members into form. The absence of room for contracted discussion allows for swift retaliation that has the potential of catching the attacking army unawares.

In times of demonstrations by people who are pushing for certain rights from their governments, there is a less individual thought process going on. Most of the decisions are arrived at in team situations during the demonstration and those who do not agree with some of the decisions cannot speak out due to the fear of being shouted down or even being beaten by the other members of the crowd. This synergy and unity of purpose are good because it leads to the granting of the rights that these people demand. In such a case, a long debate of the right decision is likely to take a long time because of the huge numbers of participants, and therefore if it is allowed to take this slow process, nothing will be achieved.

Groupthink is also crucial in sports teams since it leads to high levels of coordination. This high degree of coordination is responsible for the unity of purpose that makes some teams win in competitions. Less united teams usually have less groupthink and this is an indication of a degree of division and therefore lack of coordination.

Negative applications of groupthink

During demonstrations, groupthink can be applied by cunning members who may be out to achieve selfish goals. Such goals may be the destruction of public or private property or even hurting someone (Buchanan & Huczynski 1997, pp.12-13). This is a negative application of groupthink. Political parties also have a form of groupthink that prohibits members from questioning misdemeanors in the party. The pressure that is applied on some members such as the threat of dismissal leaves these scared members to suffer in silence.

Another negative application of groupthink is the decision-making process that is followed by criminal gangs whereby the leaders who are normally commanding take advantage of group dynamics to shut down other members whose opinions may be better in terms of ending the criminal activities.

Advantages of Groupthink

Groupthink has some advantages; meaning that there are ways in which it is beneficial to man (Giddens 1979, pp.76). The first advantage of groupthink is that It speeds up the decision-making process (Esser & Ahlfinger 2001, pp. 31-35). Due to the lack of protracted debates and arguments, the decision-making process is very short and the decision is not subject to further questioning. Secondly, groupthink is advantageous in that it makes the work of the leaders easy. It is usually the responsibility of the leader to convince the people that they need to do something. If the group can quickly choose groupthink, then the leader’s work is reduced considerably. All that such a leader needs to do is to wait till the decision is made and then take the credit. It is also possible to have so much accomplished by a group that engages in groupthink. The reason behind this is that a short time is wasted in decision making and the rest of the time can be dedicated to other areas. For example, if a football team is supposed to identify the best field to use for its finals and instead of debating over the twenty-seven field available; the team moves forward and picks its field; this team is going to have sufficient time to practice and improve its game.

Disadvantages of Groupthink

The disadvantages of groupthink include the lack of objectivity, the lack of alternatives in case of an emergency, lack of in-depth analysis in making selections, and the depriving of groups members of their mental independence (Surowiecki 2004, pp.17).

Ways of Preventing or Minimizing the Negative Impact Groupthink in Society

The best way to prevent or minimize groupthink is through the requirement that each individual produces his or her answer in school. Also, the negatives of groupthink which are so many should be emphasized as a way of dissuading people from encouraging this kind of behavior.

Conclusion

From the above, we can tell that groupthink takes place when people in a group make a common decision without looking at all alternatives, avoiding objectivity, and failing to look at the risks associated with the choice made(Whyte 1989, pp.40-45). The military and sports are some of the positive applications of groupthink while crime is a negative usage of groupthink. Some of the ways for preventing or minimizing groupthink include the encouragement of independence especially in schools and the overplaying of the negatives of groupthink as a way of discouraging people who tend engaging in groupthink.

References

1. Buchanan,D & Huczynski.A.(1997). Organizational Behavior: Introductory Text.(3^rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
2. Esser, J.K.; Ahlfinger, N.R. (2001). “Testing the Groupthink Model: Effects of Promotional Leadership and Conformity Predisposition”. Social Behavior and Personality, 29 (1): 31–42.
3. Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: MacMillan.
4. Janis, Irving L.(1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
5. Janowitz, M., ed. (1966). W. I. Thomas on Social Organization and Social Personality. Chicago: University Press.
6. McCauley, Clark. (1989).”The Nature of Social Influence in Groupthink: Compliance and Internalization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (57), 2, pp. 250-260.
7. Schafer, M. & Crichlow, S. (1996). Antecedents of Groupthink: A Quantitative Study. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, (40), 3, pp. 415–435.
8. Surowiecki, J. (2004).The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Doubleday.
9. Tuckman, B. (1965). ‘Developmental Sequence In Small Groups’, Psychological Bulletin 63(6): 384-399.
10. Whyte, G. (1989). Groupthink Reconsidered. The Academy of Management Review, (14) 1, pp. 40–56.