Introduction
Decision-making requires extensive planning, knowledge, and consideration of potential risks and market trends. Leaders encounter multiple barriers that hinder decision-making, as many disruptions can create a negative environment. In most companies in which the hierarchy does not imply that the leader is the one responsible for all choice selection, making a decision is a team effort. In the case study Letterman vs. Leno, the example illustrates a situation in which employees generate a resolution that does not correlate with the organization’s best interests and leads to financial loss. The current paper argues that the leader could have mitigated such outcomes by being mindful of disruptions, bypassing them, and taking on a less directional role.
Bypassing Antecedents and Symptoms
The antecedents and symptoms of groupthink are essential to consider when it comes to minimizing any potential threats that lead to negative decision-making environments. According to researchers, groupthink is the notion highlighting the phenomenon of a collective consensus overpowering logical and creative options and considerations (Pol et al., 2022). The antecedents include insulation from outside opinions, unorganized information, the strong involvement of the leader’s opinions, a lack of diversity, and stress. A leader can be mindful and bypass the aforementioned elements by implementing several techniques to mitigate them.
In the case of Letterman vs. Leno, the leader expressed strong support for selecting Leno as the host (Neck, 1996). This generated a sense of solidarity, which could have been avoided if the opinion was not voiced. According to researchers, creativity can improve decision-making (Mehmood et al., 2020). By generating a discussion without bias, the leader would encourage the team members to have a clear vision and build a visionary strategy for the channel. Furthermore, diversifying the team, mitigating stress, and asking for outside opinions of other group members via an anonymous vote or an analysis of viewer preference would have generated more valid outcomes.
In regards to symptoms, the leaders were to consider the perception of undisputable morality, united rationalization, negative perception of outside individuals, stress, censorship within the group, and solidarity. The leader has failed to account for the circumstances above. Several measures could have been implemented to dismiss the risks. One measure would be appointing certain team members to play devil’s advocate and generate a more thorough discussion with pros and cons (Hamilton & Hannah, 2022).
This exercise would allow for the conversation to be more two-sided. It would not be monopolized by one singular point of view and would create a more open and honest space where participants would freely express their considerations. Furthermore, this would build an understanding that the leader is not biased or trying to come to an agreement that coincides with personal decision-making outcomes.
Another way to bypass the symptoms and the antecedents is by implementing a variety of opinions rather than having a non-creative environment. In this case, the Six Hats method would have a positive outcome (Göçmen & Coşkun, 2019). The framework implies that team members have different roles in the discussion. Hence, conversation and productivity are improved, and listening is fostered among the employees. Such a model is also a more organized way of approaching decision-making as multiple elements include planning, information-gathering, creativity, and risk assessment.
Recognizing the Role of Leadership
The notions highlighted prior correlating with groupthink, such as the antecedents and symptoms, are common occurrences when a team is responsible for making a decision. However, as mentioned previously, they can be bypassed through effective measures. The measures are to be implemented by the leader, who has a direct role in fostering an environment in which groups of employees are resilient, creative, and open-minded. For example, researchers highlight that depending on the leadership style, groupthink can either be fostered or hindered (Akhmad et al., 2020).
An example would be closed leadership, which would generate a setting in which employees would follow the lead and maintain solidarity with the leader despite having different opinions. Hence, the leader has to recognize that it is important to build an environment in which individuals within a group are able to agree, disagree, discuss, and converse freely and openly without being biased, closed off, or facing repercussions. Leadership is to encourage a diversity of opinions and a dialogue rather than a monologue that guides the other individuals toward one single answer.
Conclusion
Decision-making is a complex process, especially when the reputation and financial security of a major company are at stake. Groupthink is a phenomenon that can foster mechanisms in which decisions lead to negative outcomes as circumstances correlating with groupthink antecedents and symptoms generate risks. Leaders can bypass such elements by fostering creativity, open discussions, a lack of bias, and diversity of opinions and group members. Leadership as a field implies taking the responsibility of hindering risks. As a result, the role of an effective leader is to trust employees, build environments in which they can openly express themselves, and minimize the potential of solidarity, which adversely impacts transparency and positive conflict of opinions.
References
Akhmad, M., Chang, S., & Deguchi, H. (2020). Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: Their effects and the Devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure. Journal of Computational Social Science, 4(2), 455–478. Web.
Göçmen, Ö., & Coşkun, H. (2019). The effects of the six thinking hats and speed on creativity in brainstorming. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 284–295. Web.
Hamilton, W. H., & Hannah, P. (2022). The devil’s advocate role in asynchronous online discussions: Asian region undergraduate perspectives. Issues in Educational Research, 32(1).
Mehmood, M. S., Jian, Z., & Akram, U. (2020). Be so creative they can’t ignore you! How can entrepreneurial leader enhance the employee creativity?Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38. Web.
Neck, C. P. (1996). Letterman or Leno: A groupthink analysis of successive decisions made by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(8), 3–17. Web.
Pol, O., Bridgman, T., & Cummings, S. (2022). The forgotten ‘immortalizer’: Recovering William H Whyte as the founder and future of Groupthink Research. Human Relations, 75(8), 1615–1641. Web.
Loading...
