Question

Describe a specific example of groupthink you have witnessed in your personal or professional life. Explain what factors contributed to this example of groupthink and how the outcome may have been different had groupthink not occurred. Connect your response to at least one other concept we've explored this week (such as in-groups and out-groups, roles, or social institutions).

Answer 1

Groupthink is a phenomenon when a group of people get together and start to think collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining unity than with objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and options. The group, as a whole, tends to take irrational actions or overestimate their positions or moral rightness.

Groupthink occurs when a group makes faulty or ineffective decisions for the sake of reaching a consensus. Groupthink stifles individual creativity and independent thinking in group members. Common sense, the desire to present and debate alternatives, and the confidence to express an unpopular opinion are sacrificed for group cohesion, which can significantly hinder the decision-making and problem-solving abilities of a group. Groups affected by groupthink will disregard realistic alternatives and typically choose more illogical approaches in an effort to maintain harmony within the group. As a result, the outcomes of decisions shaped by groupthink have a low probability of success.

Groupthink and Isolation

Groupthink tends to occur in isolated groups, especially in groups with no clear rules for decision making and in groups where all of the people involved have similar backgrounds. It is destructive to effective thinking.

Some examples of groupthink include the following:

• A small country that is isolated from others and that is made up of people who want to believe that the country is a major world superpower. The country may eventually begin to think as a collective whole that they are more powerful than they are and may make a fatal mistake like going to war with a larger and more powerful nation.
• An isolated group of people from the same racial and ethnic background who do not know any people personally who are different from them. The group may come to distrust or even hate outsiders because they do not understand them and because they want to reinforce the moral superiority and unity of their own group.
• A group of people who very firmly believe in one particular limited political ideal and who only watch news that supports their ideal and who only associate with people who agree with them. The group may come to hate and distrust people who disagree with them and may come to overestimate their power and influence.
• A group of employees at a company with a product that is quickly becoming outdated who are unwilling to consider new alternatives to advance in the industry. The employees may collectively live in a world where they can't understand why their product is not selling and may refuse to acknowledge the economic reality that they cannot survive without advancing.

A group is more vulnerable to groupthink when the group is composed of members with similar backgrounds, is highly cohesive, has no clear rules or defined processes for decision making, has an outspoken leader, or is isolated from outsiders. However, there are some preventative measures that can be taken to reduce the chances of groupthink, including:

• Define rules and processes for decision making and uphold them.
• Encourage full participation of every group member.
• Divide group members up into smaller brainstorming groups before sharing ideas with the larger group.
• Support debate and productive conflict in the group.
• Make it a priority to examine all alternatives before making a decision.
• Invite outside experts in to share their perspectives and insights with the group.
• Ask leaders to hold their opinions or ideas until after the group has had a chance to express their opinion.
• Have a designated evaluator or 'devil's advocate' in the group to challenge ideas and decisions.

Real World Examples of Groupthink

Groupthink is not just an isolated concept or an abstract philosophy. There are some very real examples of groupthink that can show how destructive it can be to accept the ideas of a group without questioning.

For example, some real world examples of groupthink include:

    The Bay of Pigs invasion. An invasion was planned by the Eisenhower administration, but accepted by the Kennedy administration without question when they took over. The administration ignored questions and accepted stereotypes about the Cubans without questioning whether the Central Intelligence Agency information made sense.
    The bombing of Pearl Harbor. Many of the senior officers at Pearl Harbor did not take warnings from Washington DC about potential invasion seriously despite the fact that Japanese messages had been intercepted. Those who didn't take action believed that the Japanese wouldn't dare to attempt an assault against the U.S. because they would recognize the futility of war with the United States.
   The collapse of Swissair. The airline was once so financially solvent it was called the "Flying Bank." However, they began to believe they were invulnerable and as a result of failing to question poor decisions and gross mismanagement, the airline eventually went bankrupt.
   The mass resignation of the Major League Umpires Association. The members resigned in 1999 in an attempt to gain a stronger negotiating position. They overestimated the resolve and unity of their members and the strength of their position within major league baseball. As a result, their efforts were not effective.

Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

Perhaps one of the most well-known examples of groupthink can be found in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which occurred just after liftoff on January 28, 1986. If you were alive at that time, you may have watched this horrific tragedy unfold on live TV. But what most people did not know about that day was the events that led up to the explosion, and how they would forever change the lives of the seven crew members on board the Challenger on that fatal day. It is important to note that the Challenger explosion was caused by the hardware failure of a solid rocket booster (SRB) O-ring, but the decision made by NASA on that day was also flawed. The decision was simple (to launch or not to launch), the decision was flawed, and the decision was final.

On the day before the launch, NASA had received a warning from Thiokol - the subcontractor directly responsible for the development of the SRB O-rings - concerning the abnormally cold temperatures expected for the day of the launch, and the potential threat to performance it would bring to the O-ring. Because NASA had already delayed the launch for weather, it was not entertaining the idea of postponing it a second time for inclement weather conditions. NASA chose to rely on test results on the O-rings despite Thiokol's warning that the system was also unreliable. Pressures were put on Thiokol engineers to conform to NASA's desire to launch, so they asked to hold a private meeting. Within five minutes, Thiokol agreed, without any further objections, to proceed with the launch.