The Squawk Point

Organisational Mechanics

  • Home
  • Blog
    • People
    • Data
    • Process
    • Wild Cards
    • Index
  • Podcast
  • Book

“Group Think” is no Laughing Matter

9 January, 2013 by James Lawther 4 Comments

In the 1970’s the psychologist Irving Janis coined the term “group think” to explain why group pressure results in poor decisions, or, as he explained it, why groups show:

A deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement

That is a little more erudite than the way I would put it, but the phrase describes the phenomenon beautifully.

Do you suffer from group think?

If you are a little unsure if your organisation is affected, Janis went on to document eight symptoms of “group think”, you may recognise a couple of them:

  1. A belief in team invulnerability leading to excessive optimism
  2. Ignoring warnings and not question assumptions
  3. Believing you are so morally right that the ends justifies the means
  4. Stereotyping outsiders, usually as “the enemy”.
  5. Putting people who disagree under pressure to be quiet.
  6. Self-censorship, those with doubts keep their mouths shut
  7. Unanimity, if nobody is dissenting, everybody must be agreeing.
  8. The existence of “mindguards” who protect the group’s leaders from “problematic” information

Group think is a bit of a joke.

Nobody could possibly be that stupid.

Dilbert.com

But group think is really no laughing matter

In 1978 at a settlement called “Jonestown” buried deep in the jungle in British Guyana, 912 members of the American cult “Peoples Temple” died.  Some of them were shot; some were forced to drink poison, but the vast majority committed suicide.

280 of the dead were children.

The mass suicide happened on the instruction of the cult’s leader, Jim Jones.

It is a horrific tale, how could so many people think that suicide was the right idea and shoot anybody who dissented?  All because of one influential man and a psychological phenomenon.

That is the terrifying power of group think.

The truly worrying thing is, as Scott Adams so nicely pointed out, we all suffer from group think, to one degree or another.  It is human nature.

How do you overcome human nature?

If you manage a team and are keen to avoid group think (and I kind of think you should) then there are a number of things you can do about it:

  • Appoint a Devil’s advocate
  • Don’t express your views or preferences at the start of a conversation
  • Discuss decisions with people outside the core group
  • Invite in experts to challenge your thinking

Unfortunately all of these tactics are reliant on you, as the manager, having the strength to know when to listen and keep your mouth firmly shut.

And as I know to my cost, trying to do that well is really no joke.

If you enjoyed this post click here for updates delivered to your inbox

Group Think

Read another opinion

Image by carbonNYC

Filed Under: Blog, Employee Engagement Tagged With: assumptions, colleagues, Dilbert, effective meetings, group think, human nature, sacred cows, stereotype, teamwork, what don't you see

About the Author

James Lawther
James Lawther

James Lawther is a middle-aged, middle manager.

To reach this highly elevated position he has worked in numerous industries, from supermarket retailing to tax collecting.  He has had several operational roles, including running the night shift in a frozen pea packing factory and carrying out operational research for a credit card company.

As you can see from his C.V. he has either a wealth of experience or is incapable of holding down a job.  If the latter is true this post isn’t worth a minute of your attention.

Unfortunately, the only way to find out is to read it and decide for yourself.

www.squawkpoint.com/

Comments

  1. maz iqbal says

    10 January, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    Hello James,

    Let’s take a second look at your definition: “A deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement”.

    If I take this seriously then it occurs to me that ‘groupthink’ and it’s partner ‘doublespeak’ (they are like two sides of the coin, you find them together) are the default – the way things are, it is the game that just about everyone is playing. It really take something – being an outsider, courage, nothing to lose – to see ‘groupthink’ and ‘doublespeak’ and to rise above it.

    If we look just at ‘groupthink’ then Kuhn showed that this shows up even in the most ‘objective’ of social life, science. A community of physicists operates from a paradigm. What it sees, the problems that it works on, the equipment it uses are all functions of and related to the paradigm. And that paradigm is just like ‘groupthink’. Episodically, someone new, someone young, someone not brainwashed into ‘groupthink’ and not having build his status/income on the existing paradigm comes along and offer a radically new paradigm that better explains the most difficult problems – the ones that the old paradigm could not handle. Guess who are the new converts to this paradigm? The young scientist, those least vested in the old paradigm. And once the old guard have converted, slowly and died, then the new paradigm takes hold. And then the scientific community is once again embedded in ‘groupthink’ on the basis of this new paradigm.

    At the normal everyday human level Heidegger showed the ‘groupthink’ is the default way of our being-in-the-world. He called it ‘everydayness’, ‘the Anyone’, ‘levelling’.

    Maz

    Reply
    • James Lawther says

      17 January, 2013 at 8:54 pm

      Your point Maz, that this is inevitable is well made. I guess what I am trying to say is how do you minimise the issue. Eradication is really not on the table.

      And yes, I suppose group think and double speak are two sides of the same coin

      James

      Reply
  2. Adrian Swinscoe says

    12 January, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    Hi James,
    I’d like to endorse Maz’s point but also say that a lot of groupthink, for me, comes from familiarity and your final suggestion…Invite in experts to challenge your thinking….is a good one to challenge norms and assumptions. However, I would suggest that it does not have to be experts but could just be an outsider that offers a different perspective.

    Adrian

    Reply
    • James Lawther says

      17 January, 2013 at 8:52 pm

      Absolutely Adrian, the issue of course is that we inherently distrust outsiders. Which makes the problem all the worse.

      James

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Explore

accountability assumptions beliefs best practice blame bureaucracy capability clarity command and control communication complexity continuous improvement cost saving culture customer focus data is not information decisions employee performance measures empowerment error proofing fessing up gemba human nature incentives information technology innovation key performance indicators learning management style measurement motivation performance management poor service process control purpose reinforcing behaviour service design silo management systems thinking targets teamwork test and learn trust video waste

Receive Posts by e-Mail

Get the next post delivered straight to your inbox

Creative Commons

This information from The Squawk Point is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Creative Commons Licence
Customer Experience Update

Try This:

  • Fish Bone Diagrams – Helpful or Not?

  • Regression to The Mean

  • Should You Punish Mistakes?

  • The Alpha Male Paradox

Connect

  • E-mail
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • YouTube
  • Cookies
  • Contact Me

Copyright © 2025 · Enterprise Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in