In a famous 1973 analysis by Irving Janis, groupthink was named as the cause for numerous American disasters including the Bay of Pigs invasion under President Kennedy.
Groupthink was defined as a phenomenon that occurs when a group of wellintentioned people makes irrational or poor decisions due to:
* the urge to have consensus and cohesiveness
* the urge to conform to avoid conflict (have consensus and cohesiveness)
* valuing harmony and coherence over critical thought and analysis
REFLECT:
Think about why you don’t speak up when you disagree.
Think about times you have chosen conformity over conflict and why?
APPLY:
Set a goal to speak up when you disagree.
When you achieve the goal, increase it.
Continue to increase it until you are comfortable speaking up.
More recent studies suggest this conclusion was erroneous. Consensus and cohesiveness do not assure groupthink.
When Janis conducted his study, all documents relating to the invasion were classified. When those documents were opened, they revealed a group of almost the same “cohesive” advisors for the Bay of Pigs invasion piloted the successful Cuban missile crisis. So the team dynamics were the same: the situation was different.
Studies of successful and failed strategic decisions in top management teams at seven Fortune 500 companies, as well as a study in the political arena, concluded cohesiveness does not add to groupthink and should be deleted from the groupthink model. Cohesiveness has been shown to create enhanced communication and increased challenging of team members. Groupthink is most common when groups are:
* uniform and lack diversity and psychological safety
* insulated and closed minded
* stressed and / or have time constraints
Signs of groupthink are:
* ignoring doubts / warning signs / blind spots
* having extreme optimism
* assuming ethics / goodness
* stereotyping outsiders / outside views as “bad”
* assuming silence means agreement
* allowing “mind control” censors to invalidate others
Janis’s main cure for Groupthink was to appoint a Devil’s Advocate, a practice named by Pope Sixtus V in 1587 when he began a new process for vetting candidates for sainthood. He assigned a promoter of the faith to oppose the canonization and make the needed arguments to do so. Consequently, it means opposing the majority.
In today’s organizations, the Devil’s Advocate role is called the authentic dissenter role. It means authentically searching for the truth or best solution. To do it effectively requires
* being invested in the position the role is taking, not merely assigned
* convincing the group of the true belief in the position
* being radically transparent
For leaders to use authentic dissenters effectively, they must “draw them out” – not appoint them. To do that, ask the team members these questions:
* who currently speak up about not agreeing?
* who would you rely on to challenge assumptions and directions?
* who would you trust to risk disapproval from others and fight for the right ways of doing things?
APPLY:
Create a plan for drawing out an authentic dissenter for your team.
Brainstorming is key to getting a wide range of ideas / alternatives, but I rarely see it done effectively. I have used it for decades – and the results always exceed other idea-generating approaches. The process assures everyone gets equal say and feels included: it precludes domination by any person or faction.
Here’s the process.
1. Designate a person to record for the group – preferably on a white board that all can see (this can be done in online meetings as well)
2. Identify the question / issue
3. Set a timer for 2 minutes: have each group member write as many ideas as they can about the question / issue
4. Round robin: while others are silent, have one person at a time gives their “best” idea to be recorded (no feedback or comments are allowed during this time)
5. Open it up to others to contribute additional ideas (no feedback or comments are allowed during this time)
6. Open it up to feedback and comments – not problem solving strategies – with pros and cons of each idea
7. Choose the agreed on best ideas to investigate, strategize
Other strategies include:
* have a problem solving / decision making strategy everyone understands
* do problem solving individually – then compare results
* do problem solving in separate small groups – then compare results
* have a facilitator for the group process (with no connection / agenda)
APPLY:
Set up and practice a brainstorming session this week.
