An interesting situation which, I would argue, is representative of Groupthink.
As a brief summary of the situation: a subgroup within a larger group is discussing the possibility of changing the larger group’s structure. In that larger group, similar discussions have been quite frequent, in the past. In effect, the smaller group is moving toward enacting a decision based on perceived consensus as to “the way to go.”
No bad intention on anyone’s part and the situation is far from tragic. But my clear impression is that groupthink is involved. I belong to the larger group but I feel little vested interest in what might happen with it.
An important point about this situation is that the smaller group seems to be acting as if the decision had already been made, after careful consideration. Through the history of the larger group, prior discussions on the same topic have been frequent. Through these discussions, clear consensus has never been reached. At the same time, some options have been gaining some momentum in the recent past, mostly based (in my observation) on accumulated frustration with the status quo and some reflection on the effectiveness of activities done by subgroups within the larger group. Members of that larger group (including participants in the smaller group) are quite weary of rehashing the same issues and the “rallying cry” within the subgroup has to do with “moving on.” Within the smaller group, prior discussions are described as if they had been enough to explore all the options. Weariness through the group as a whole seems to create a sense of urgency even though the group as a whole could hardly be described as being involved in time-critical activities.
Nothing personal about anyone involved and it’s possible that I’m off on this one. Where some of those involved would probably disagree is in terms of the current stage in the decision making process (i.e., they may see themselves as having gone through the process of making the primary decision, the rest is a matter of detail). I actually feel strange talking about this situation because it may seem like I’m doing the group a disservice. The reason I think it isn’t the case is that I have already voiced my concerns about groupthink to those who are involved in the smaller group. The reason I feel the urge to blog about this situation is that, as a social scientist, I take it as my duty to look at issues such as group dynamics. Simply put, I started thinking about it as a kind of “case study.”
Yes, I’m a social science geek. And proud of it, too!
Thing is, I have a hard time not noticing a rather clear groupthink pattern. Especially when I think about a few points in Janis‘s description of groupthink.
|
A PDF version, with some key issues highlighted.
Point by point…
Observable
Antecedent Conditions of Groupthink
Insulation of the group
A small subgroup was created based on (relatively informal) prior expression of opinion in favour of some broad changes in the structure of the larger group.
Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures
Methodical procedures about assessing the situation are either put aside or explicitly rejected.
Those methodical procedures which are accepted have to do with implementing the group’s primary decision, not with the decision making process.
Symptoms Indicative of Groupthink
Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
Agreement is stated as a fact, possibly based on private conversations outside of the small group.
Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
A call to look at alternatives is constructed as a dissenting voice.
Pressure to conform is couched in terms of “moving on.”
Symptoms of Decisions Affected by Groupthink
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Apart from the status quo, no alternative has been discussed.
When one alternative model is proposed, it’s reduced to a “side” in opposition to the assessed consensus.
Incomplete survey of objectives
Broad objectives are assumed to be common, left undiscussed.
Discussion of objectives is pushed back as being irrelevant at this stage.
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Comments about possible risks (including the danger of affecting the dynamics of the existing broader group) are left undiscussed or dismissed as “par for the course.”
Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives
Any alternative is conceived as having been tried in the past with the strong implication that it isn’t wort revisiting.
Poor information search
Information collected concerns ways to make sure that the primary option considered will work.
Failure to work out contingency plans
Comments about the possible failure of the plan, and effects on the wider group are met with “so be it.”
Less Obvious
Antecedent Conditions of Groupthink
High group cohesiveness
The smaller group is highly cohesive but so is the broader group.
Directive leadership
Several members of the smaller group are taking positions of leadership, but there’s no direct coercion from that leadership.
Positions of authority are assessed, in a subtle way, but this authority is somewhat indirect.
Homogeneity of members’ social background and ideology
As with cohesiveness, homogeneity of social background can be used to describe the broader group as well as the smaller one.
High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s)
External “threats” are mostly subtle but there’s a clear notion that the primary option considered may be met with some opposition by a proportion of the larger group.
Symptoms Indicative of Groupthink
Illusion of invulnerability
While “invulnerability” would be an exaggeration, there’s a clear sense that members of the smaller group have a strong position within the larger group.
Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
Discussions don’t necessarily have a moral undertone, but the smaller group’s goals seem self-evident in the context or, at least, not really worth careful discussion.
Collective rationalization of group’s decisions
Since attempts to discuss the group’s assumed consensus are labelled as coming from a dissenting voice, the group’s primary decision is reified through countering individual points made about this decision.
Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
The smaller group’s primary “outgroup” is in fact the broader group, described in rather simple terms, not a distinct group of people.
The assumption is that, within the larger group, positions about the core issue are already set.
Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
Self-censorship is particularly hard to observe or assess but the group’s dynamics tends to construct criticism as “nitpicking,” making it difficult to share comments.
Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information
As with leadership, the process of shielding the smaller group from negative information is mostly organic, not located in a single individual.
Because the smaller group is already set apart from the larger group, protection from external information is built into the system, to an extent.
Symptoms of Decisions Affected by Groupthink
Selective bias in processing information at hand (see also confirmation bias)
Information brought into the discussion is treated as either reinforcing the group’s alleged consensus or taken to be easy to counter.
Examples from cases showing clear similarities are dismissed (“we have no interest in knowing what others have done”) and distant cases are used to demonstrate that the approach is sound (“there are groups in other contexts which work, so we can use the same approach”).