Groupthink
Author’s Name
Institute Name
Groupthink
In 1972, social psychologist Irvin L. Janis coined the term groupthink as “a psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision making groups.” Janis made a significant effort in explaining why certain groups make certain decisions which in retrospect are obviously wrong. In certain situations, it is hard to visualize why people support certain group decisions even though they do not agree with them personally. These instances are a direct result of the groupthink phenomenon. In order to understand groupthink, it is important to recognize the characteristics of groups susceptible to groupthink along with the positive …show more content…
The bombing of Pearl Harbor on 7th December, 1941 offers a classic historical example of how groupthink can lead to serious consequences. It demonstrated three profound characteristics of groupthink; belief in invulnerability, collective rationalization and stereotyping outsiders.
Due to an illusion of invulnerability among the in-group of Admiral H. E. Kimmel, the group neglected the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Although the intelligence chief notified Kimmel that there was no contact with Japanese aircraft careers, he did not pay heed to the warnings. In fact, he treated it as a joke due to his overconfidence in United States’ authority, strength and power. The exact response of Kimmel to the warning was “What, you don't know where the carriers are? Do you mean to say that they could be rounding Diamond Head (at Honolulu) and you wouldn't know it?” Apart from belief in the group’s invulnerability, ignorance of danger warnings displays the group’s collective rationalization. Rather than reconsidering the possible courses of action, the group overlooked the repeated warnings. It persuaded itself that the Japanese would never attack Hawaii because they knew that United States would win if war broke out. Stereotyping outsiders- the Japanese in this case- is another symptom of …show more content…
The duty of the advocate is to challenge the perspectives of the majority position, in order to openly discuss all the pros and cons of each alternative course of action. Moreover, inviting an expert to the group’s meetings increases the flow of information and prevents insulation of the group against outsider perspectives.
Another important remedy for groupthink is to divide the group into sub-groups. When different groups discuss alternatives independently, the probability of divergent thinking increases. Once each sub-group has reached its decision, they can merge together and indulge in a healthy debate to support their stance .
In my opinion, the groupthink phenomenon can be curbed effectively by deploying a participative leadership style. Although group members need to respect and trust the leader, they should not lose their individuality. Their ability to think independently is important for fostering divergent opinions. However, there are some drawbacks of this approach. Open airing of doubts and suspicions regarding alternative courses of action can prove to be a time consuming and costly process. In the modern era, rapid changes in the macro and micro environment require quick adaptation and prompt decision making. Therefore, if groups engage in prolonged arguments, it may be unable to take timely action. Despite the problems associated with eliminating
Author’s Name
Institute Name
Groupthink
In 1972, social psychologist Irvin L. Janis coined the term groupthink as “a psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision making groups.” Janis made a significant effort in explaining why certain groups make certain decisions which in retrospect are obviously wrong. In certain situations, it is hard to visualize why people support certain group decisions even though they do not agree with them personally. These instances are a direct result of the groupthink phenomenon. In order to understand groupthink, it is important to recognize the characteristics of groups susceptible to groupthink along with the positive …show more content…
The bombing of Pearl Harbor on 7th December, 1941 offers a classic historical example of how groupthink can lead to serious consequences. It demonstrated three profound characteristics of groupthink; belief in invulnerability, collective rationalization and stereotyping outsiders.
Due to an illusion of invulnerability among the in-group of Admiral H. E. Kimmel, the group neglected the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Although the intelligence chief notified Kimmel that there was no contact with Japanese aircraft careers, he did not pay heed to the warnings. In fact, he treated it as a joke due to his overconfidence in United States’ authority, strength and power. The exact response of Kimmel to the warning was “What, you don't know where the carriers are? Do you mean to say that they could be rounding Diamond Head (at Honolulu) and you wouldn't know it?” Apart from belief in the group’s invulnerability, ignorance of danger warnings displays the group’s collective rationalization. Rather than reconsidering the possible courses of action, the group overlooked the repeated warnings. It persuaded itself that the Japanese would never attack Hawaii because they knew that United States would win if war broke out. Stereotyping outsiders- the Japanese in this case- is another symptom of …show more content…
The duty of the advocate is to challenge the perspectives of the majority position, in order to openly discuss all the pros and cons of each alternative course of action. Moreover, inviting an expert to the group’s meetings increases the flow of information and prevents insulation of the group against outsider perspectives.
Another important remedy for groupthink is to divide the group into sub-groups. When different groups discuss alternatives independently, the probability of divergent thinking increases. Once each sub-group has reached its decision, they can merge together and indulge in a healthy debate to support their stance .
In my opinion, the groupthink phenomenon can be curbed effectively by deploying a participative leadership style. Although group members need to respect and trust the leader, they should not lose their individuality. Their ability to think independently is important for fostering divergent opinions. However, there are some drawbacks of this approach. Open airing of doubts and suspicions regarding alternative courses of action can prove to be a time consuming and costly process. In the modern era, rapid changes in the macro and micro environment require quick adaptation and prompt decision making. Therefore, if groups engage in prolonged arguments, it may be unable to take timely action. Despite the problems associated with eliminating