Groupthink in the WorkplaceAn analysis of a real-life
situation
Webster UniversityOrganizational Behavior
Egzon Burri
IntroductionChanges that took place in the modern era
transformed peoples minds and attitudes, incorporated new manners
on decision making processes and initiated new ways of managing
projects. Our schools, our culture, our companies, and our
workplaces nowadays put much effort into incorporating the work in
groups. This has become a norm in todays organization actions and
decisions. The reason for this step was that extroverted people in
general tend to be more creative and positioned in the forefront;
there is always a higher possibility of teamwork showing a better
performance and better results than individual work. Some people
argue that the level of creativity is higher when people work
privately. Research shows that there is a number of people who are
more creative when they are free in decision-making processes.
These people are introverted in general as they produce the most
qualitative results by working individually, but they do possess a
controlled level of extraversion for exchanging ideas and catching
trends (Cain 2012). There are always contradictions when choosing
which one is better. Some people argue that work in groups brings
better results than individual work. It really depends on the
mindset of the people/organizations, their preferences and if this
method is pertinent to them. This new phenomenon of teamwork has
managed to become an increasing trend in almost any organizations
today. Nevertheless, there is a downside which results from this
trend known as groupthink. This term was introduced by Irving L.
Janis in 1972 which explains how groups get engaged in different
processes characterized by several effects which makes them fail to
achieve the targeted success (Hutter 2005). Groupthink is a concept
that describes the gathering of individuals for the purpose of
focusing on the idea or set of ideas (UOPX Writer Network 2010).
This phenomenon usually takes place when peoples primary goal
becomes reducing the conflicts within the group or when they
perform under stressful circumstances. As a result, people strive
in achieving an agreement; they become isolated from the outside
opinions where irritation takes place and organizations fail (UOPX
Writer Network 2010). The groupthink phenomenon creates such
circumstances where group members fail to achieve qualitative
decisions and instead undertake bad choices. This does not imply
only the negative side of Groupthink. As discussed below,
groupthink might bring positive changes to the company, but
typically this trend interferes with the decision trying to reach
good results. Hence, it should be critical for any company who
experiences the groupthink trend to take the necessary steps for
avoiding its development in further harmful stages. The avoidance
of the groupthink trend will bring improvement of the decision
making process and an increase in the chances for undertaking
better decisions. Hence, it is very crucial to understand the term
and the effects that come together with groupthink, both upsides
and downsides in order to be prepared to overcome the trend as
positively as possible. Characteristics of GroupthinkGroupthink
mostly affects people who have worked together for long periods of
time in teams. During these periods, team mates develop matching
ways of thinking and acting, and this is where most of the problems
arise (Whyte 1989). As mentioned above, when people avoid foreseen
problems or do not express their opinions for the sake of not
opposing the team beliefs results into some of the worse decisions
ever made. This does not imply that unified teams are necessarily
bad teams, but it could lead to the creation of the problems if all
team members agree for all the circumstances that occur. There
might be several reasons why do group members resist changes. Based
on research, the most matching conclusion might be that of members
having an accepted view for all the decisions and that of the
leaders who consider themselves as not susceptible to errors
(McCauley 1998). The author of the groupthink theory, Janis
mentions several types of symptoms that characterize the groupthink
phenomenon. These characteristics can be grouped into three
groups:1. Group of characteristics that produces an overestimation
of the teams abilities and includes Illusion of invulnerability and
belief in inherent morality.2. Group of characteristics that
produces closed-mindedness and includes collective rationalizations
and stereotyped images of out-groups.3. Group of characteristics
that produces pressures toward uniformity and consensus and
includes self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, direct pressures
on dissenters and self-appointed mindguards. (Eaton 2001).
According to Johnson, below symptoms are those that characterize
the groupthink phenomenon mostly:Illusion of invulnerability is the
excessive optimism that makes the group believe they will succeed
and there is no need in considering or reviewing failures. Belief
in inherent morality is when members have a strong positive belief
on their cause and do not consider any ethical or moral
consequence. Collective rationalization - is when members deduct
warnings of right or wrong and do not consider their
assumptions.Stereotyped images of out-groups is when the group
creates a negative image about the out-groups which makes them not
consider the effective responses to conflict; the team considers
themselves as better than the enemy. Self censorship - is when the
team chooses to go with the perceived consent instead of expressing
their doubts or concerns; if nobody is expressing their opinion,
then all the others consider as unnecessary to express their own.
Illusion of unanimity is when there is a belief that there dissents
are non-existent among the members and the consent was achieved by
the majority. Direct pressures on dissenters is when members do not
express their arguments against any of the groups decisions because
of the pressure; if you argument against, you may risk being
dismissed psychologically or physically. Self-appointed mind-guards
is when members try protecting the groups views and decisions by
keeping away any disturbing or contradictory information (Johnson
1992). At the first side, based on these characteristics one can
conclude about the negative effect that the groupthink phenomenon
has on teams and workplaces (Hart 1991). Even though these
characteristics seem to be malicious, some seem to contribute
positively to the team. For example, pressures toward uniformity
can serve as an indicator of concurrence-seeking whereas
overestimation or closed-mindedness can make this concurrence to
have a negative influence on the team. Nevertheless, the presence
of these symptoms does not necessarily imply the presence of the
groupthink phenomenon. As its definition mentioned above states,
groupthink occurs when the cohesion at a group and the pressure for
undertaking a quality decision are at a very high rate. Such
pressure subsidizes to a lower motivational level for alternatives
as team members constantly seek for unanimity and therefore,
decisions shaped by the groupthink phenomenon are highly unlikely
to reach the satisfactory results. Real-Life ExampleBirra Peja a
beer producing company was a monopolistic manufacturer in Kosovo
for 10 consecutive years. The company started working immediately
after the war in Kosovo, and had managed successfully to keep the
forefront in this market. The company was using the machines that
were left from the previous companies for the completion of its
operations. The staff was very well coordinated and the
relationships between the co-workers were very good. There were 4
sectors divided into subgroups, where each group had a coordinator
who supervised all the actions and leaded the working process. Each
of these group coordinators were to gather in another group that
was responsible for reporting to the main office manager. For a
period of 7 years, it became one of the most successful companies
which employed a large number of people and reached a high level of
profits. It became a dream-workplace for everyone considering the
working conditions, payments, and success of the company. I had the
chance to be an employee of this company during the summer of 2008.
This year the company has reached its peaks both on production and
profits. They were covering the whole region of Kosovo with their
products, and the focus was on extending their operations in
regional countries such as Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, and
Albania. The secret of such success lies on the fact that the
company managed to gather a huge market share by satisfying the
consumer needs which made it almost impossible for competitors to
enter. Moreover, the company had a special plan designed for its
employees. Employees were considered as one of the most precious
assets of the company. However, the situation started to change
from the beginning of 2008. As the world was entering in a digital
era, the aim of every company became to transfer almost all of its
operations from manually to digitally. There were several
advantages of going digital, but the cost of losing employees was
too high for many companies. The profits of the company began to
shrink, there were too many people employed, the production process
was slower compared with the needs of the market etc. Clearly, the
management had to change the working structure, implement
innovations and remove all the amortized equipment. Before any
analysis, the question of whether the failure of one company can be
considered as a consequence of the groupthink effect is raised.
There were three characteristics of groupthink that took place and
shifted the companys operations in an excessive bad direction.
Group characteristic number one which affected the company was the
symptom producing an over-estimation of the group. The main problem
which caused the decrease in profits derived from the illusion of
invulnerability. Followed by an over-estimated attitude, this made
the management of the company to not respond accordingly to the
trends and undertake risks. Consequently, the company overvalued
its assets without considering the changing trend that the whole
world was facing. The company refused to enter the privatization
process for reasons of not losing its people the machinery which
was almost 70% amortized. The consequences started increasing as
other similar companies purchased the new digitalized inventory
which fastened the production process, testing methods were far
more advanced, and the quality increased in proportion with the
worldwide standards. The danger, therefore, was that the group
continued to follow its traditions without considering the changes
that were shaping the whole world. Group characteristic number two
which added even more damage to the company was the stereotyped
images of out-groups. The existent bond between the group and its
managers was too strong to be threatened by the adoption of
worldwide trends. Clearly, the company was under the effect of the
groupthink phenomenon, which again led them to underestimate their
competitors. The monopolistic position that they held in Kosovo and
the giant profits blinded them and the groupthink effect lead them
towards less durable, end of the market. Such an outlook for the
competitors made the management completely lose the concentration
on the changes and competitors gain from these circumstances.
Secretly, competition got stronger as time passed while the leader
Birra Peja was too busy in keeping the standards within the group
high. The market share started to shrink as more new companies were
adapting to changes and gaining clients day by day. Advantages of
Groupthink Sometimes a high level of team cohesion can have a
positive effect for the team and the workplace. Many management
teams today attempt a lot to maintain team cohesion which leads to
the creation of the groupthink effect. Since competition is one of
the largest enemies that almost any organization tries to overcome,
having unity amongst the team members and avoiding feedback from
outside sources might be two crucial factors to consider. Often
groups engage in such projects that it becomes dangerous for the
wellbeing of the organization to reveal any type of information to
outsiders. Additionally, if the ethical standards are present
within the team members only when saving information for the team,
will not dissolve this situation into dangerous actions (UOPX
Writer Network 2010). The groupthink phenomenon somehow obligates
everyone to maintain good working relationships with its mates and
follow the set rules. Hence, this leads to a situation where
groupthink creates a harmonious relationship among the group
members, especially in situations where extreme levels of
incongruities are present. Moreover, a unified vision and strong
effort initiated by the groupthink phenomenon might be the
initiators of successful actions for a new company or organization.
By placing an emphasis on unity towards a single goal, might
improve the performance of an organization, especially when the
team has to reach a decision where the group strength is a
necessity. Another significant tool that might contribute
positively is the support and encouragement within the group
members. Having a united purpose in the decision-making process
will create confidence among the team and produce a successful
project. When each team member follows the rules and norms,
certainly it will bring grand outcomes and prosperity for the whole
organization.Disadvantages of Groupthink On the other extreme,
there are situations where the groupthink phenomenon leads to a
failure of an entire project or even the failure of the
organization. Usually, one of the most destructive characteristics
of groupthink is the isolation of the group from all the outside
influences and sources (Baron). As a result of this isolation, many
organizations fail to embrace the trends and developments of the
emerging technological innovations. As technology today became one
of the leading factors to success, the adoption of these trends
would open the path for success. Another damaging outcome from this
isolation might be the internal communication within the group
where it can reach the point of them being unaware of shutting
every outside possibility (UOPX Writer Network 2010). The pressure
of the team to conform to the majority opinion leaves important
aspects un-reviewed which brings disastrous consequences. In giant
projects it is essential to grasp as more as possible from all the
members in order to have more options and opinions, minimize the
errors in order to achieve the best decision. When the group
becomes highly selective for possibilities, it limits the choices
to only few alternatives and leads to the possibility of using only
the information that supports the group conclusions. Once more, the
group faces a situation where it is impossible to go along with the
developing trends. An additional disadvantage of the groupthink
effect is that which leads to destruction of individualism since
the members become more concerned about following the company norms
rather than give their contribution (Hicks 2010). Thus, the company
fails to incorporate more assets and diverse ideas for any future
step undertaken. As the failure of projects or decisions can shape
the future of a company, it is very important to develop plans
which might reduce the risk or prevent the harm from happening.
Many companies worldwide pay a lot of attention in creating such
plans which serve to them in cases of the worst scenarios. This
tool is known as a contingency plan. These plans help the companies
make scenarios in case their actions fail to reach the target.
However, groups under the effect of the groupthink fail to
implement these plans in their projects. Not creating contingency
plans usually comes as a result of the high confidence that the
groups have on their decisions and projects as a consequence of the
groupthink effect (Hutter 2005). Remedy Recommendations One cannot
surely define if the effect of the groupthink phenomenon is
positive or negative. As discussed above, in some extremes it
contributes to the wellbeing of the team and relationships within
members, while in some other extremes it blocks any possibilities
and leads the project or even the whole organization to failure. If
the company look towards a more balanced approach of groupthink, it
would be very convenient for its wellbeing. Any company who
experiences the groupthink phenomenon should intervene before the
harm is done and overcome that with the least damages possible. It
becomes a necessity to develop plans which will fight against this
effect in order to prosper. One of the groupthink characteristics
is that leaders do create some barriers with outsiders when making
decisions, and this does not always produce harmful decisions.
Since most of the team leaders affected by groupthink undertake
decisions without considering the others opinion, it would be
healthy for a company to create a regimen where outside ideas are
also acceptable and considered in their projects. As a result, more
ideas would contribute to the development of the project and the
possibilities for progression would increase. Additionally,
organizations should have a level of self-awareness because it
helps reduce the risks that groupthink brings. Organizations should
concern about the communication of the members within the group and
create a sharing dialogue where everyones opinion would be
considered and valued (Chapman 2006). Yet, by holding reserves from
the outside effects would reduce the paranoia that people feel and
their contribution would be greater (UOPX Writer Network 2010).
Infinite challenges to shut down the groupthink phenomenon include
different strategies to develop more colorful ways of thinking and
acting. One of strategies for reducing the effect of groupthink
would be the creation of a group responsible in evaluating the
members opinions and suggestions and then criticize/argue about
those. It is crucial to have an environment where the opinions are
discussed before the decision is reached and the critiques are
accepted positively for the wellbeing of the company. Additionally,
these critiques might encourage people to think more critically and
start innovative thinking for the upcoming projects. Going back to
the destruction of the Birra Peja example, the damage which was
caused by the overestimation of the group would be much lower if
the company would have an evaluating group. This groups presence
would disturb any wrong decision from being developed. In the case
of Birra Peja, the company assets would not be overestimated as the
evaluation process would prove it differently through the analyses
that they would conduct. Another important factor which might serve
as a remedy is the formation of the groups (McCauley 1998). The
success of any project or decision depends a lot from the
backgrounds of the people who designed it. As discussed above,
sharing different ideas inside a group might reduce the possibility
of mistakes and a better conclusion would be reached but in some
cases, diversity is the biggest enemy of a successful project. This
might be interconnected with the group size, even though Janis did
not give much attention to this factor (McCauley 1998). Larger
groups tend to have more opinions to consider and more people
engaged in a specific decision. This can lead to an impartial
exchange of information which then makes it impossible for the
group to communicate. Hence, it becomes almost impossible to reach
a positive result if it is designed by a very diverse group
(McCauley 1998). Similarly, Birra Peja would have a brighter future
if the group sizes would be reduced. The company employed a large
number of people and the largest percentage of the work was done
manually. This large number of people intervened also with the
decision making process, and this is why the company experienced
the failure. If the size of the groups would be reduced, the work
would be done more efficiently as the manufacturing process would
be completed by machines and much faster. At times, diversity
serves the best, but in some cases, a certain level of stability
within the group should be kept.To continue, the implementation of
better search methods or more research conducted would be another
recommendation for reducing the groupthink. Groupthink is caused by
the insufficient amount of information which comes as a result of
the isolation of the group. Hence, encouraging members to search
for information, solutions, objections or any doubts in outside
sources can help the company be on track with trends, updated with
information, overcome the doubts and notified about any competitive
steps that threaten their progression or future. If this method
would be applied by Birra Peja, the company would be more notified
about the market changes, the developing trends and especially
about the rise of its competitors. The operation for removing the
groupthink effect should include an examination procedure which
would be conducted periodically. This examination would check all
departments for groupthink evidence and then work in improving the
created situation. The target would be groups with lower
productivity and these then would be aimed for purifying the
groupthink mentality. This operation would be very helpful since
the groupthink effect would be stopped in the early phases of
development and the damage would be smaller. To conclude, the
long-lasting debates and analyses created by the groupthink most
probably will continue even further. Its dual effects positive and
negative raised many questions and analyses which even today are
left un-answered. Yet its contribution has been enormous for almost
any subject today, integrated in many decision processes and a
major crisis for a large number of companies. The positive effects
of the groupthink phenomenon should be analyzed even more and
incorporated into the folders of success of any company out there.
As for the malicious effects that groupthink brings, the dose of
research and information should increase in order to cure the
groupthink phenomenon.
SourcesBaron, Robert S. So right its wrong: Groupthink and the
ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision-making. University of
IOWA-Department of Psychology.
http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark/teach/3480/Groupthink-Baron.pdf
(accessed October 1, 2012).Cain,Susan. The Rise of the New
Groupthink. The New York Times (January 13, 2012).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
(accessed September 28, 2012).
Chapman, Judith. 2006. Anxiety and defective decision making: An
elaboration of the groupthink model.Management Decision44, (10):
1391-1404,
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/docview/212065039?accountid=108;
http://yv4zn7rr3m.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Management+Decision&rft.atitle=Anxiety+and+defective+decision+making%3A+an+elaboration+of+the+groupthink+model&rft.au=Chapman%2C+Judith&rft.aulast=Chapman&rft.aufirst=Judith&rft.date=2006-11-30&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1391&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Management+Decision&rft.issn=00251747
(accessed October 6, 2012).
Clark McCauley, Group Dynamics in Janis's Theory of Groupthink:
Backward and Forward, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Volume 73, Issues 23, February 1998, Pages 142-162, ISSN
0749-5978,
10.1006/obhd.1998.2759.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597898927595
(accessed September 28, 2012)
Eaton, Jack. 2001. Management communication: The threat of
groupthink.Corporate Communications6, (4): 183-192,
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/docview/214190838?accountid=108;
http://yv4zn7rr3m.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Corporate+Communications&rft.atitle=Management+communication%3A+The+threat+of+groupthink&rft.au=Eaton%2C+Jack&rft.aulast=Eaton&rft.aufirst=Jack&rft.date=2001-10-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=183&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corporate+Communications&rft.issn=13563289
(accessed September 26, 2012).Hart, Pault.. Irving L. Janis'
Victims of Groupthink. International Society of Political
Psychology, Volume 12, No.2. (June, 1991). 247-278
http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/faculty/hauser/PS493V/HartVictimsGroupthinkPolPsych1991.pdfhttp://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/groupthink.shtml
(Accessed September 28, 2012)
Hicks, Todd. Advantages and Disadvantages of Having Groupthink
in the Workplace. Yahoo! Voices. (2010).
http://voices.yahoo.com/advantages-disadvantages-having-group-think-5211847.html?cat=31
(accessed September 26, 2012).
Hutter, Jim. Groupthink as Theory in Groupthink Now. (2005).
1-13. http://www.pols.iastate.edu/ps305/groupthink%20now%20ch01.pdf
(Accessed September 30, 2012)Johnson, Virginia. 1992. The
groupthink trap.Successful Meetings41, (10): 145-145,
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/docview/206014714?accountid=108;
http://yv4zn7rr3m.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Successful+Meetings&rft.atitle=The+Groupthink+Trap&rft.au=Johnson%2C+Virginia&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=Virginia&rft.date=1992-09-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=145&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Successful+Meetings&rft.issn=01484052
(accessed October 6, 2012).UOPX Writter Network. Groupthink: Pros
and Cons in the Workplace. (September 27, 2010).
http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/doctoral/articles/2010/09/groupthink-pros-and-cons-in-the-workplace.html
(Accessed October 2, 2012)Whyte, Glen. 1989. Groupthink
reconsidered.Academy of Management.The Academy of Management
Review14, (1): 40-40,
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/docview/210936296?accountid=108;
http://yv4zn7rr3m.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Academy+of+Management.+The+Academy+of+Management+Review&rft.atitle=Groupthink+Reconsidered&rft.au=Whyte%2C+Glen&rft.aulast=Whyte&rft.aufirst=Glen&rft.date=1989-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=40&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Academy+of+Management.+The+Academy+of+Management+Review&rft.issn=03637425
(accessed October 1, 2012).12
