In January 1986, Challenger – the space shuttle – exploded into millions of pieces mere minutes after its launch. The retrospective assessments by the involved scientists at NASA presented an opportunity for researchers to explore the faulty decision-making process of a very reputed group of engineers and astronauts, which led to a disaster that could’ve been avoided.
Irving Janis, a psychologist at Yale, called such group phenomena leading to poor decisions as groupthink. He defined it as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” Simply put, groupthink refers to a situation where the extreme focus on preserving group unity has a negative impact on the decision-making process. This concept has several antecedent conditions like cohesiveness, closed leadership, insulation from outside perspectives, homogeneity of group members, flawed decision-making protocol, and more that culminate in poor decisions.
In multiple studies, leadership has emerged as a major antecedent to groupthink. Not only does the style of leadership impact the quality of decisions, but it also impacts the level of dissent voiced. The number of alternatives suggested and those evaluated tend to be fewer when the leader promotes their preferred solutions as compared to when they don’t. For instance, the leaders of Weatherman (an extremist group in the USA) were seen to have almost complete control over the group’s activities. One of their leaders is remembered as “so loud and persistent that no one could interrupt him.” The influence of the leaders resulted in an unfortunate end for the group.
Similarly, in pop culture, the movie Mean Girls had the leader of the popular group (Regina) dominate decisions from acceptable clothing to friendships outside the group. Even without her presence, the members regulated their behavior based on what Regina would be likely to approve. While fictional and exaggerated, this pattern of groupthink bears resemblance in real life for many.
Cohesiveness is another highly studied antecedent on groupthink. The group cohesiveness has to be towards its members as cohesiveness towards the task mediates the detrimental effects of groupthink to some extent. Cohesiveness also demands that group members “stick together.” Even when an individual doesn’t personally agree with the group, they might show public agreement or compliance. This is quite a slippery slope as one may feel pressured to agree to the majoritarian ideas and the group itself would miss out on valuable alternatives.
One can logically see the act of discouraging dissent to go hand in hand in such situations. Recently, Gaurav Taneja alleged that AirAsia put pilots in a difficult position that resulted in violation of safety norms to increase profit for the airlines. He was subsequently suspended leaving behind a vivid example of the repercussions of dissent, especially in corporations. Such ramifications push dissenters into compliance and strengthen the prevailing groupthink.
The act of whistleblowing, too, is a rather elaborate form of dissent that emerges from a dissenter who sees the rest of the group in a state of groupthink. Instead of rationally assessing the whistleblower’s arguments, the state of groupthink would make the group perceive them as mischievous for going against the decision of the cohesive, conforming, confident and insulated group. This is why we see cases like Edward Snowden, although, routinely the actions limit to leaving the group or organization where one sees groupthink guiding its functioning.
As many historical incidents were originally evaluated by Janis, there has been great focus on the implications of groupthink in the political, economic, national and international spheres even in recent times. For decisions pertaining to national interest, the group dynamics shared by the members prove more relevant than the prevailing contextual circumstances in decision making, often increasing the likelihood of international conflict. For instance, the relatively recent financial crisis of 2008 was a casualty of groupthink. As Robert Shiller, a professor of economics at Yale, explains, the psychological need to observe restraint as a part of an elite group often results in self-censorship. The same restraint by the board members in 2007-08 left them blindsided as they did not notice the incoming financial crisis despite the obvious warning signs.
In India, the rise of the populist-right wing Hindutva politics in spite of the growing intolerance and “symbolic violence” across the country reflects a strong hold of groupthink. The mix of a promotional leader, homogenous group members, group insulation and active denouncement of dissenters proves a perfect recipe for faulty decision-making. With the Covid-19 pandemic, the effects of groupthink have further come to the forefront.
But all is not bleak as certain refinements in the original theory have noted favorable outcomes of groupthink. Under threat, group functioning can have constructive effect if the group members view themselves as members and not individuals, and strive to maintain a positive group identity. This is highly valuable especially in fields like medicine or the stock market, where time is limited and consequences large. Furthermore, having a group identity at moderate levels can strengthen group performance by enhancing motivation in members.
Even though the literature mostly stands with the negative outcomes of groupthink, recent studies suggest that mediating these using group activities and a positive group identity can show an improvement in the decision making process and execution of tasks. One can also ponder the impact of a shift in culture from collective to individualistic, an increase in opportunities, and multicultural values and upbringing of people on the conventional outcomes of groupthink.
Jahnvi Jose
