Groupthink: Cohesive But Ineffective People

“Together we think better.” How many times have we heard this phrase? It is true that sometimes the most innovative ideas arise between good work teams with the synergy of several minds oriented towards the same purpose. Now, sometimes, this rule of three is not true. Sometimes we make the worst decisions because of that phenomenon known as groupthink.

Let’s reflect on that for a moment. Throughout our history, nefarious ideas have been carried out from groups (supposedly) prepared and instructed for it. We could cite classic examples in the literature on this subject, such as that of John F. Kennedy’s team of advisers with the Bay of Pigs case. Also, the space shuttle Challenger crash in 1986.

These are notorious cases, but without a doubt, each of us will have a similar situation in mind. It is enough to remember some experience of our group work, those in which the members do not dare to disagree for fear of breaking the cohesion, those in which someone proposes a not very brilliant or even absurd idea and everyone accepts it as good.

Is there a reason that explains why we are bad at group thinking? What explains the fact that, on certain occasions, common sense is diluted and the worst strategies are chosen? We analyze it.

Groupthink: what is it and how does it work?

The phenomenon of groupthink was defined by social psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970s. His work Victims of Groupthink (1972) is, even today, a reference for several reasons. The first because it defines a reality that we continue to see frequently; that tendency of groups to try to minimize conflicts without analyzing all ideas, without allowing themselves to contrast, test and even leave room for criticism among the members themselves.

Second, this UC Berkeley professor showed us that there is nothing more dangerous than pressure for conformity. Groupthink is a type of bias that extols simplistic reasoning by displacing the innovative, the risky, and, of course, individual thinking.

What Defines a Group Thought Team?

We pointed out at the beginning that this phenomenon usually occurs among highly qualified work teams. We were talking, for example, of the Challenger shuttle disaster, described as the most serious accident in the history of space conquest.

The commission that was later created to investigate the accident showed that a non-viable vehicle was allowed to be launched. The go-ahead was given despite the fact that many knew the status of the aircraft. It was as if a team of experts had allowed an airplane with a faulty wing to take off.

Why are such dire decisions made between apparently so prepared people? These are usually the keys:

• Conversations and discussions are based on a few ideas, usually one or two.
• The greater the cohesion of the group, the greater the fear when proposing ideas that are opposite to those of others. Constructive criticism is seen as a threat to that union between the different members.
• On average, there is usually a climate of stress, an atmosphere where there are external pressures to make certain types of decisions quickly.
• Groupthink is also defined by a selective bias that makes them focus on the first ideas or initial proposals. They rarely go further. The fact of adding other perspectives adds excessive complexity that they do not know or want to handle.
• Once they have a plan, it rarely occurs to them to have a strategy B or a contingency plan in place.

• These groups are usually mediated by a leader, by a figure who is not contradicted. Conformity is sought before their ideas and proposals so as not to break that adhesion to said person.
• Also, and on average, they are convinced that their decisions are morally correct.
• On the other hand, there is usually another fact: they are isolated groups that do not receive any type of external feedback.

How can groupthink be prevented?

The phenomenon of groupthink has had multiple studies and specialized literature since it was popularized by Irving Jarnis in the 70s. To this is added an obvious factor: we continue to make terrible decisions when we work in groups.

Thus, research such as those carried out by Dr. Christopher Neck of the Virginia State University and Gregory Mohead of the University of Arizona offer the following proposals to avoid this type of situation.

• Take care of two key aspects when making decisions:
  • Promote constructive criticism.
  • Avoid pressure towards compliance
• Create a good climate so that each individual feels free to propose ideas and disagree.
• Have a figure capable of always raising points of view opposed to those of the majority (devil’s advocate)
• Likewise, it is convenient to remove power from that type of authoritarian and directive leadership.

To conclude, nothing is so hygienic for an organization to apply self-criticism, spaces for discussion and that feedback with which to propose more innovative ideas and more effective decisions. Let’s keep it in mind.