1
Group Thinking
According to Riggio (2015), group thinking, first introduced by Irving Janis, is defined as the syndrome that
occurs in highly cohesive or ones with strong relationship decision-making groups, where a norm develops to arrive
at an early consensus, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the group’s ability to make high quality, critical
decisions. Based on Callaway & Esser (2014), the reason group thinking occurs is that the group members are having
the desire to maintain cohesiveness and unity to overcome any uncomfortable and/or disruptive processes while
making decisions. In such cases, once a course of action is decided upon, it is not fully analyzed and subjectively
criticized, but agreed upon by all group members.
Example of Group Thinking in Middle East
Currently, Companies in Saudi Arabia are planning for an upcoming Next Generation program where a
number of Saudi fresh graduates from all over the country are selected based on certain criteria set by product line
mangers, human resources and training departments. Once they are selected, they are welcomed into the company
facility where they will be evaluated during a specific time, through many practical and written tests that will lead to
eliminating some and accepting the others to be part of the 3 years program that entails them to be employed in the
company.
This is the third year that the program is running, and the companies conduct it in every city to encourage
nationalization of its forces where they are located. Saudi Arabia was the first to launch the program last 2 years and
it was a huge success that other countries took note of the initiative and followed its lead. With that in mind, this
year, being part of the preparation group, it was clear from the first meeting that all members were expecting to
copy last year experience because it worked and because everyone knows what to do and happy with the role they
took.
Symptoms of Group Thinking
Rodriguez (2014), mentioned some of the symptoms of group thinking, they include; illusion of
invulnerability where members are not aware or not considering risky decisions taken, collective rationalization:
Members discredit and explain away warning opposite to group thinking and belief in inherent morality: Members
discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking. Furthermore, hared negative stereotyped views of
out-groups: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group creating a (We-They feeling
towards others), direct pressure on dissenters: Members pressure any in the group who expresses arguments against
the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty. In addition, self-censorship:
Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments and Illusion of unanimity: Members perceive falsely
that everyone agrees with the group’s decision; silence is seen as consent. Finally, “Mind guards” are appointed:
Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten
group complacency.
Of these symptoms, I can say that the group I am in are showing signs of collective rationalization and
negative stereotype since they are happy with last year’s results, they believe that others are not as good as them.
Most of the members are also showing signs of illusion of unanimity and some are playing as mind guards where
they believe that their opinions are the ones of value and will be accepted by all members to keep them protected
and successful.
From my point of view, this syndrome happened because of the strong relationship among the group
members and the good collaboration between them from last year. They built connection and trust that led them to
success, which made them neglect factors, that could improve this year’s results or doom all their efforts.
Strategies to Eliminate Group Thinking
Since it is an ongoing process, such issue should be addresses before it escalates further and cause
negative impact. According to Riggio (2015), bringing in new members to criticize and play the “Devil’s Advocates”,
shuffling ideas, brainstorming and constructive criticism sessions, with active listening to the experience of other
countries as well as Next Generation members from last year will shed light on areas that are neglected and will
break the system.
To ensure a high-quality ethical decision and avoiding any outcomes of groupthink, a leader has to insist on
the consideration of a variety of options before finalizing a decision. In addition, these options have to be tested
according to rigorous logical testing. Once, there is a flaw is discovered, the plan can be revised for further
consideration (Sims & Sauser, 2014).
References:
Callaway, M. R., & Esser, J. K. (2014). Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problem-solving procedures on group
decision making. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 12(2), 157-164.
Riggio, R. E. (2015). Introduction to industrial/organizational psychology. New York: Routledge.
Rodriguez, M. A. (2014). Methodological and theoretical problems with Janis' groupthink theory. GRIN Verlag.
Sims, R. R., & Sauser, W. I. (2014). Toward a Better Understanding of the Relationships among Received Wisdom,
Groupthink, and Organizational Ethical Culture. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 14(4), 75-90.
2
Group decision-making face many problems that can hinder their work such as groupthink,
which is one of the most common problems. Groupthink is defined as “a pattern of thought
characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and
ethics.” (Bénabou, 2013, p.1). It is a sign of the presence of strong pressures towards conformity in
the groups. Consequently, group members suspend their own critical judgment and the right to
question, which can result in a bad or immoral decision. The resulted pressure can be seen as an
outcome of an organizational culture, that accepts and causes certain beliefs or standards for
behavior from the members (Sims & Sauser, 2013).
Several factors can result in and create groupthink. One of these factors is the peer
pressure. Peer pressure is when a member of the group expresses his/her doubts or concerns is
pressured by other group members who question his/her loyalty. Another factor is self-censorship.
This factor occurs when the members of the group are not expressing their doubts or concerns
about an action. Self-censorship can prevent the process of critical analysis of the decision. One
more factor that results in groupthink is the rationalization. It happens when a group member
fabricates explanations for his/her decision to make it look correct and rational. As a result, other
alternatives are not considered. In addition, there is the unwillingness to reconsider the group’s
assumptions, which would make the other members feel unwanted (Sims & Sauser, 2013).
The groupthink results in many types of ethical decision-making flaws and outcomes. With
regard to the result variables, there are two types of decisions: unethical decisions and lower quality
decisions. The negative outcomes of groupthink are: no more investigation of a preferred unethical
option, no more investigation of unacceptable options, refusing opinions, less perceived options, and
selective bias of additional information. In order to guarantee a high-quality ethical decision an avoid
any groupthink outcomes, leaders have to make sure of considering a variety of options before
making the final decision. Also, these options need to be tested according to thorough logical
testing. When discovering a flaw, the plan can be revised for further consideration (Sims & Sauser,
2013).
Finally, groupthink is acknowledged when a group has decided on a devastating decision.
Once this occurs, there are some questions to be asked. These questions are: how could we have
been so blind, and why did not anyone call attention to the errors? One problem that may cause this
when the group did not consider any questioning or criticism of its actions. Hence, it is important to
establish a regulation of intentionally injecting contrast into the considered process before making a
particular critical decision (Bénabou, 2013).
References
Bénabou, R. (2013). Groupthink: Collective delusions in organizations and
markets. Review of Economic Studies, 80(2), 429-462.
Sims, R. R., & Sauser, W. I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of the
relationships among received wisdom, groupthink, and organizational ethical culture. Journal
of Management Policy and Practice, 14(4), 75.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment