1

1. Introduction
1.1 Groupthink
Irving Janis defined groupthink as, A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are
deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members strivings for unanimity override
their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action (Janis,1972).
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which
the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional
decision-making outcome. Groupthink is a situation in which people in a team or group have
absolute loyalty to each other, think that they have no weaknesses or bad points, have cookie-
cutter mentalities and ultimately, are oblivious to what is real, with an illusion of unanimity.
It is a disease that spreads when the norms for conforming in a group become so strong, and
members are highly concerned about maintaining unity, that they fail to evaluate their
options and make wise decisions. Thus, in groupthink, group members try to minimize
conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints,
by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside
influences. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in
background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions and when there are no clear
rules for decision making.
1.2 How Groupthink Works?
Janis identified seven points on how groupthink works. First, the groups discussions are
limited to a few alternative courses of action (often only two), without a survey of the full
range of alternatives. Second, the group does not survey the objectives to be fulfilled and the
values implicated by the choice. Third, the group fails to reexamine the course of action
2

initially preferred by the majority of members from the standpoint of the non-obvious risks
and drawbacks that had not been considered when it was originally evaluated. Fourth, the
members neglect courses of action initially evaluated as unsatisfactorythey spend little or
no time discussing whether they have overlooked non-obvious gain. Fifth, the members make
little or no attempt to obtain information from experts who can supply sound estimates of
gains and losses to be expected from alternative courses of action. Sixth, selective bias is
shown in the way the group reacts to factual information and relevant judgments from
experts. Seventh, the members spends little time deliberating about how the chosen policy
might be hindered by bureaucratic inertia or sabotaged by political opponents; consequently,
they fail to work out contingency plans.
1.3 Relationship between the world of work and groupthink
Groupthink exists within an organization. It is a common phenomenon in the corporate
world. Companies and their teams are exposed to the negative consequences of groupthink as
corporate traditions, lack of employee diversity or static team configuration can lead to
situations where thinking out of the box seems an unreachable challenge, or even an
annoyance to be avoided. Gender diversity and most notably equality in boardrooms is still a
worrying issue for many companies. Many elements help explain the reasons why women are
not yet as present as their male peers in top leadership positions. Groupthink is one of them.
Gender imbalance can perpetuate groupthink, preventing the development of alternative
decision making, internal training or simply group dynamics can involuntarily generate a
corporate culture of groupthink where questioning the established methods can mean not
only reducing creativity but also be perceived as a threat.
3

2. Discussion
2.1 Some Citations
Groupthink being a coinage-and, admittedly, a loaded one-a working definition is in order.
We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity-it is, after all, a perennial failing of
mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity-an open, articulate
philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.
(William H.Whyte.Jr.,1952)
Groupthink has set up a resistance amongst the team to deny any possibility of an alternative
view. They continually asked for clear objectives and aims to the extent that their appetite
was impossible to quench. Their so called rigor could then be seen as a mask for a lack of
imagination or understanding and an excuse to force (yet again) sterile facts into an already
known answer. (Bourdieu,1992)
The important thing about groupthink is that it works not so much by censoring dissent as by
making dissent seem somehow improbable. (James Surowiecki)
2.2 Examples of Groupthink
The Flying Bank is one of the prime entrepreneurial examples of groupthink in
business. This refers to the collapse of Swissair, a Swiss airline company that
believed itself to be so financially stable that it became known as the Flying Bank.
Authors Aaron Hermann and Hussain Rammal described two symptoms of
groupthink in their article The Grounding of the Flying Bank. These symptoms
were the belief that the group was invulnerable and its morality superior. Before its
4

collapse, Swissair reduced its company board, losing much of its industrial expertise
in the process. Experts attribute the resizing as a factor in groupthink.
The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster was caused by groupthink. These books will
quote how Nasa knew about the potential for failure but did not want to delay the
launch so they went ahead with the launch anyway. However, what is really
interesting about this example is that groupthink did not cause the disaster; faulty o-
rings did, with groupthink being a contributory factor on the day of launch, when the
program manager plus others met with one of the contractors. The fact that all of
these business books blame groupthink as the cause of the disaster is in itself a kind
of groupthink, and thus not without irony.
Cults are very good example of groupthink. They suck people into joining them, and
alter their beliefs and perceptions to fit that of their group.

5

2.3 Causes of groupthink
Janis prescribed three antecedent conditions to groupthink:
2.3.1 High group cohesiveness
Deindividuation: group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual
freedom of expression.
2.3.2 Structural faults
insulation of the group
lack of impartial leadership
lack of norms requiring methodological procedures
homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology.
2.3.3 Situational context
highly stressful external threats
recent failures
excessive difficulties on the decision-making task
moral dilemmas.
Although it is possible for a situation to contain all three of these factors, all three are not always
present even when groupthink is occurring. Janis considered a high degree of cohesiveness to be
the most important antecedent to producing groupthink and always present when groupthink was
occurring; however, he believed high cohesiveness would not always produce groupthink. A
very cohesive group abides to all group norms; whether or not groupthink arises is dependent on
what the group norms are. If the group encourages individual dissent and alternative strategies to
problem solving, it is likely that groupthink will be avoided even in a highly cohesive group.
6

This means that high cohesion will lead to groupthink only if one or both of the other
antecedents is present, situational context being slightly more likely than structural faults to
produce groupthink.
2.4 Symptoms of groupthink
A shared illusion of invulnerability, which leads to an extraordinary degree of over-
optimism and risk-taking.
Manifestations of direct pressure on individuals who express disagreement with or
doubt about the majority view, making it clear that their dissent is contrary to the
expected behavior of loyal group members.
Fear of disapproval for deciding from the group consensus, which leads each member
to avoid voicing his misgiving and even to minimize to himself the importance of his
doubts when most of the others seem to agree on a proposed course of action.
A shared illusion of unanimity within the group concerning all the main judgments
expressed by members who speak in favor of the majority view, partly resulting from
the preceding symptom, which contributes to the false assumption that any individual
who remains silent during any part of the discussion is in full accord with what the
others are saying.
Stereotyped views of the enemy leaders as evil, often accompanied by the assumption
that they are too weak or too stupid to deal effectively with whatever risky attempts
are made to outdo them.
An unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the in-group, which inclines the
members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
7

The emergence of self-appointed mindguards within the groupmembers who take it
upon themselves to protect the leader and fellow members from adverse information
that may prevent them from being able to continue their shared sense of complacency
about the effectiveness and morality of past decisions.
Shared efforts to construct rationalizations in order to be able to ignore warnings and
other forms of negative feedback, which, if taken seriously, would lead the members
to reconsider the assumptions they continue to take for granted each time they
recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.
2.5 How to avoid groupthink
There are several things businesspeople can do to avoid groupthink: follow good meeting
procedures, including the development of an agenda; aim for proper and balanced staff work;
present competing views; and attend to correlative meeting problems, like exhaustion. A
template for discussion might also be useful. One suggestion is to use an "options memo
technique" in which information is presented as a problem statement, a list of options, and a
preliminary recommendation. The group then looks at the preliminary recommendation with
at least four questions in mind: (a) is the logic correct? (in selecting the preliminary
recommendation from among the options); (b) is the judgment correct? (the logic may be
fine, but the judgment may be poor); (c) are there any problems or errors remaining in the
preliminary recommendation?; and (d) can the preliminary recommendation be improved? In
order to prevent group isolation, it may be helpful to bring in new participants on a regular
basis, use outside experts, and invite the group to meet off-site so that changes in settings and
surroundings are a stimulant.
8

To avoid groupthink, it is vital for the group leader to become a statesperson or conductor
instead of a partisan virtuoso. Leadership almost always involves getting work done through
others. High-quality decisions are not made through intimidation, whether intentional or
unintentional. Some bosses have no idea why people do not speak up, while the reason they
do not is because they are likely to be attacked. Bosses encourage the best performance from
groups when they can alert them to the kind of review that is expected. If the leader can be
clear, and temperate, there is a great likelihood that norms of disagreement will develop.
Finally, there is the cohesion process itself. Decision making tears at the fabric of group
cohesion, and it is the desire to preserve cohesion that is an underlying dynamic of
groupthink. But if decisions lower group cohesion it is not necessary to avoid decisions; an
alternative is to rebuild cohesion each time. One way to accomplish this rebuilding is to
complete decision making by about 65 percent of the way through the meeting, then move on
to brainstorming for the last 20-30 percent of the meeting. People who have differed before
have a chance to continue to interact, now around less threatening, future-oriented items.
This meeting technique allows for decompression, and for rebonding of the group.
Because of the flaws of individual decision makingselective perception, excessive self-
interest, limited knowledge, limited timemost important decisions today are made in
groups. And groups can do a spectacular job; but they often do not. Meetings, the place
where groups do their decision-making work, have a bad reputation these days, largely
because of processes such as groupthink. Groupthink is the result of flawed procedures, poor
leadership, insulation, and an unmanaged desire for the maintenance of group cohesion and
9

its good feelings. These factors can be addressed positively, and group decision making
improved, while groupthink is kept to a minimum.
2.6 Effects of groupthink in the Workplace
Although individual skills and performance impact the success of a business, individuals are
components of an overall mechanism. In music, the sound of the individual instruments
combine to produce the resonance we call music. Like music, individuals certainly play a
significant role in business operations and the individual significance of each employee must
be understood, but the group dynamic must also be comprehended. When people are part of a
group, they behave differently than as individuals, thus groupthink impacts the workplace
differently than individual perspectives.
As a group, employees have objectives that must be met. If management over focuses on the
needs and wants of individuals then it becomes far more difficult to appease the interests of
employees, thus the performance of all employees could suffer. Recognizing efforts to please
a group of employees with incentives designed to appease the group and its leadership is
important, because it helps businesses effectively respond to the interests of employees.
Addressing the interests of the group can very successfully mitigate the need to consider the
interests of every single employee.
On the other hand, over simplifying the interests of employees based on their group
membership can create harmful biases. Looking down on subordinates, management can
misgauge the concerns and interests of certain individuals, because they look at workers as a
single group. Ignoring the differences between subcultures in the workplace can be a serious
10

misstep as applying an ineffective incentive or consequence across all employees can be
costly in term of money, productivity, and employer-employee relations.
Consequently, looking at employees as a single group versus a group of individuals can be
quite detrimental when inappropriate. Aside from the human trait to seek out ways to
distinguish ourselves as unique individuals, viewing issues as the symptom of a group
dynamic can lead to workplace conflicts between supervisors and subordinates if tactics are
tailored to address issues in ways that make employees feel disenfranchised. It is important to
recognize when an individual's interests must be addressed versus focusing too heavily on the
interests of the group.
Groupthink in the workplace can be used by management to positively influence the behavior
of employees and to produce better results. At the same time, relying too heavily on
groupthink can allow serious issues to fester within a company where subcultures exist.
Where groupthink can bring employees together in a singular effort to address issues within a
business, properly interpreting how employees will be affected by incentives and punitive
policies as a group and individuals is very important; otherwise, waste and conflict are sure
to prevail.
When group members start conforming to the opinions of the majority, they are allowing
team to become one-sided. When the team has a narrow minded approach towards a problem,
they wont be able to analyze the problem completely and thus, not provide the best possible
solutions. Furthermore, if a team member succumbs to groupthink that means that they are
submitting to peer pressure. This further implies that the group environment is dominating
and does not foster true group work. These feelings of submission lead to negative feelings
11

which fester in the group and result in low morale, resentment and apathy, all highly
detrimental to team spirit.


12

2.7 Advantages of groupthink in an organization
In an organization, groupthink can be an advantage because we will get everyones
participation and a lot more ideas might be gathered when having more people
brainstorming together.
A project may be done faster and thought out more clearly because there was several
people working on it and more ideas and opinions were shared so the project may
exceed expectations. This can make the work place a fun environment to be in
because we enjoy our work, our group, and may feel important to not only the
company, but to the people we work next to everyday.
Group think can produce grand results. If everyone follows the established rules and
norms at work, the company is likely to prosper.
Those who go along are likely to have little to worry about. If we always follow the
set rules, it is hard to get into trouble.
Job security could be our reward. If we conform, we might do every task the right
way; consequently, we get to hold onto our job.
There is likely to be little confusion. If there are established moral guidelines,
everyone will have more clarity on how they are supposed to conduct themselves.
We might gain social acceptance. If we conform, we can make friends more easily.
The group projects should be a success. If each group member is on the same page in
regard to how to be an asset, the entire group can work together well, reach a
consensus on decisions that are made and have a successful project.
Thus, we can say that groupthink does not only have negative aspects but it can be fruitful to
group members and an organization too.
13

3. Findings
3.1 Understanding
I got to know many things about the groupthink. They are listed as follows:
When groupthink occurs, creativity, mental efficiency and moral judgment become
impaired. Objectivity suffers. Group members refuse to fully assess risks and reject
expert advice. Once alternatives are discarded, they are not reevaluated. Only
information that supports the groups viewpoint is discussed and accepted. Since the
group believes it is immune to failure, it refrains from making contingency plans.
Whether a group will succumb to groupthink depends on the norms the group
establishes for decision making.
Those that lack impartial leadership, good decision-making methods and external
input are highly susceptible to groupthink. High-stress situations, such as those
involving external threats or moral dilemmas, can also lead to groupthink.
Groups that refrain from promoting a single agenda, encourage members to share
their concerns, allow independent evaluation, seek expert input and feedback,
critically weigh all alternatives and develop contingency plans can avoid and even
correct groupthink.
Groupthink affects an organization. The consequences are: creativity is stifled, bad
decisions are made because there is no opposition, possible solutions might be
overlooked, profitability is jeopardized.
14

In an organization, groupthink can be an advantage because we will get everyones
participation and a lot more ideas might be gathered when having more people
brainstorming together.
3.2 Critical assessments of groupthink
Despite the applicability and popularity of groupthink theory, however, few studies have
been done on the subject. A clear methodology for evaluating groupthink has not yet
emerged due to all the variables involved. Groupthink research is highly subjective, and
researchers who observe group decision making often disagree on when or why groupthink
occurs. Some of the studies done have lead to conflicting conclusions about which factors are
most predictive of groupthink. In the thirty years since Janis first proposed the groupthink
model, there is still little agreement as to the validity of the model in assessing decision-
making behavior (Park,2000). Janis theory is often criticized because it does not present a
framework that is suitable for empirical testing; instead, the evidence for groupthink comes
from largely qualitative, historical or archival methods (Sunstein,2003). Some critics go so
far as to say that Janiss work relies on anecdote, casual observation, and intuitive appeal
rather than rigorous research (Esser,1998,cited in Sunstein,2003,p.142). Some researchers
have criticized Janis for categorically denouncing groupthink as a negative phenomenon
(Longley & Pruitt,1980, cited in Choi & Kim,1999).
Another criticism of groupthink is that Janis overestimates the link between the decision-
making process and the outcome (McCauley,1989;Tetlock,Peterson,McGuire,Chang &
Feld,1992;cited in Choi & Kim,1999). Moorhead & Montanari conducted a study where they
concluded that groupthink symptoms had no significant effect on group performance.
15

4. Conclusions
Groupthink occurs when individuals who work together are afraid to challenge one another
and fail to properly evaluate all of the options and alternatives available. Companies, large
and small, often group employees together so that they can brainstorm and work together to
find solutions for many of the problems encountered on a daily basis in the business world.
While there are many benefits to working together, including enhanced creativity and
productivity, there are drawbacks too.
A person may not like another in a group; so it may cause conflict. If the group is too big, a
person might not be able to share his or her ideas and thoughts because the group ran out of
time or they havent had the chance to go around to everyone and ask for their ideas and
thoughts. If we get along with everyone in our group, it is not enough for everyone to have a
chance to talk. Everyone plays an important role in the group, and everyone in that group
carries their own weight that will make the groupthink fun and easy to do. If we are in a
group that is too big, we dont get along with the others, and we feel like we are left out or
our opinions dont matter; then we are not going to participate in the group activity and help
get the work done. When we come to work feeling upset or mad because of the way we
believe our group is treating us it may wear off unto others and cause a stressed work place.
Companies would like to trust their employees to work together and be professional about the
work and be professional with a co-worker if a conflict arises. Today, being in a groupthink
is important in companies, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Thus, groupthink affects the group members and an organization both positively and
negatively. It is up to them how they take it.