Groupthink Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Groupthink, a termed coined by Yale psychologist Irving Janis, refers to a dysfunctional mode of decision making in which members of exceptionally cohesive groups strive for unanimity in opinion to the extent that they prematurely agree on a particular course of action and fail to consider more suitable alternatives. Although teams generally make better decisions than individuals, in-group pressures for solidarity, loyalty, and uniformity in beliefs and behavior can interfere with beneficial group dynamics. For these reasons, teams interacting over long periods of time can become too cohesive and too focused on agreeing with each other.

Amicable groups seeking too much agreement may fail to carefully evaluate their initial decisions and focus too narrowly on a small set of alternatives. Such groups may not see the importance of obtaining viewpoints and information from outside sources. The absence of external feedback tends to obscure the potential negative consequences of decisions and the obvious ways the plans are destined to fail. The likelihood of groupthink increases as external stress on the group increases. Therefore, groupthink is more likely to occur in the context of budget crunches, recent setbacks, or urgent time pressures.

Several additional factors predispose group members to groupthink. Groups characterized by a groupthink dynamic often believe they are immune to error and that they are too intelligent or too experienced to make poor decisions. Beliefs in the inherent morality of their positions, coupled with stereotypes of other groups as evil and immoral, also lead to faulty decision making. Groupthink is more likely to occur when group members erroneously believe that they are in unanimous agreement. This illusion of unanimity is sustained by members’ self-censorship of their doubts and by so-called pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance comes into play when team members who have serious doubts do not openly express them, leaving others to think they are alone in their disagreement. In the event that one or two individuals risk expressing their concerns, others apply direct pressure to persuade them to change their dissident opinions. In addition, “mind guards” shield the group from information that contradicts their conclusions. Mind guarding can involve suppressing external or internal information. Finally, group members engage in selective perception by ignoring information that does not conform to their preconceived ideas. As a result, members with special expertise or information may find their input is rejected. Small group psychologists agree that groupthink is more likely to occur when more of these factors are present.

Scholar Rebecca Cline maintains that groupthink is more apt to occur in the White House than elsewhere due to the president’s high status and the awe inspired by the position. Persons with unpleasant information or contradictory opinions may be particularly unwilling to present such information to the president. Groupthink has been linked to several catastrophic domestic and foreign policy decisions, including the Watergate cover-up, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the Challenger space shuttle launch. Most recently, political pundits have suggested that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq should be analyzed in terms of groupthink.

The ill-fated launch of the Challenger shuttle—despite evidence of serious design flaws, weather concerns, and engineers’ warnings that the primary o-ring could fail in cooler weather—is a classic example of the groupthink phenomenon. In this case, internal memos questioning the viability of the primary o-rings in cool weather were not circulated. In addition, engineers who expressed concern about the launch were silenced by direct pressure from other members of the team.

The Bay of Pigs invasion, in which President Kennedy and his cabinet uncritically accepted and supported an ill-conceived CIA plan to send Cuban exiles into Cuba to overthrow dictator Fidel Castro’s government, is an often cited example of groupthink. Historical analysis indicates that at least two Cabinet members failed to express their own doubts about the mission. In contrast, historians praise President Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis, noting that he managed essentially the same team in a very different manner. To avoid another foreign policy fiasco, Kennedy altered his behavior in several important ways. He suspended the usual rules of protocol, adopted an impartial stance, assigned the roles of critical evaluators and devil’s advocate to various cabinet members, and brought in outside experts to critically evaluate the group’s plan. Finally, to foster a climate of independent thinking, he did not attend some group meetings.

Leaders play a pivotal role in fostering a climate that is antithetical to groupthink. In assigning tasks, leaders should avoid being too directive or indicating their desired result. They should also take special pains to elicit minority points of view. Leaders can guard against premature agreement by avoiding arbitrary termination of discussion and timelines. In addition, they can call a follow-up meeting where members can raise doubts after reviewing the decision outside of a pressure-filled environment. Finally, dividing members into subgroups to discuss the same issue can lessen the pressure to conform, especially if high-status individuals are separated from low-status individuals. Members can then be brought back together to report the outcomes of their discussion and resolve their differences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Cline, Rebecca J.Welch. “Groupthink and the Watergate Cover-up:The Illusion.” In Group Communication in Context: Studies in Natural Groups, edited by Lawrence R. Frey, 199–223. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994.
CRM Learning (producer). Groupthink, Rev. ed. Carlsbad, Ca: CRM Learning, 1991.
Hart, Paul ‘t. Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Rockland, Mass.: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1990.
Janis, Irving L. “Groupthink:The Desperate Drive for Consensus at Any Cost.” In Classics of Organization Theory. 4th ed., edited by Jay M. Shafritz and Steven J. Ott, 183–191. Belmont, Ca.:Wadsworth, 1996.
Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos. 2nd ed., revised. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983.
Ross, Raymond S. Small Groups in Organizational Settings. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1989.

This example Groupthink Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.