Page 269 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

252 Chapter 9

groupthink groups exhibited significantly higher levels of agreement, and these agree-
ments were simple, unsubstantiated ones. Group members ended up making state-
ments and agreeing with themselves. In contrast, the agreements exhibited in the
non- groupthink groups were substantive in nature, with different speakers providing
different evidence and lines of reasoning to support their assertions. In groupthink,
concern for positive relationships and cohesiveness seems to override critical thinking.
Groupthink is a common phenomenon in government, business, and educational
groups. It has been implicated in a number of disastrous policy decisions, including
NASA’s 1986 decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger, which exploded just after
87
takeoff. Swissair, also known as the “Flying Bank” because of its financial stability,
rode off into bankruptcy due to faulty business decisions attributed to groupthink
88
actions. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was faulted for groupthink actions that dramatically
shifted U.S. foreign policy toward Saddam Hussein. Even in the area of sports, organi-
89
zations have been faulted for groupthink actions that lead to poor decisions. Major
league umpires, in negotiation with Major League Baseball (MLB), decided to enact a
huge walkout in 1999, believing they had the power to sway MLB. Their walkout failed
90
miserably. In all these decisions, group members had information that should have
forewarned them of impending failure, but biases affected how they processed the infor-
mation: Beliefs in their invulnerability, overestimation of their strength, self- censorship,
desire for harmony, and cohesiveness, among other things, sabotaged the decision-
making process. It seems that when informational and normative pressures (pressures
stemming from group norms) compete, the influence of norms supporting agreement
outweighs the pressure to share and evaluate information carefully. 91
Groupthink is not inevitable in a cohesive group. Antecedents of groupthink, such
as high cohesiveness and directive leadership, do not inherently produce dysfunctions in
a group. High socioemotional cohesiveness is most likely to produce groupthink symp-
92
93
toms, especially when it is paired with low task- oriented cohesiveness. A meta- analysis
of cohesiveness confirmed that cohesiveness based on interpersonal attraction among
members can produce the kinds of problems associated with groupthink, but cohesive-
ness based on commitment to the task has the opposite effect. The effects of cohesive-
94
ness are magnified when a group must decide unanimously instead of by majority rule. 95
A revised model of groupthink that takes these and other factors into account has
been proposed by Neck and Moorhead, who add time pressure and importance of the
decision as factors contributing to groupthink. These authors believe that two mod-
96
erating factors, the role of the leader and how methodical the group’s decision- making
processes are, determine whether the antecedent conditions of cohesiveness, time,
and importance will actually produce groupthink. The leader’s behavior is particularly
important. A leader with a closed communication style minimizes member participa-
tion in decisions, discourages diverse opinions, states his or her opinions at the outset
of a discussion, and does not emphasize the importance of making a wise decision.
When groupthink conditions are present, this style is more likely to produce
groupthink than an open style that encourages participation.
There are many things that can go awry during problem solving and decision
making. In the next chapter, we give you specific suggestions to help ensure that your
groups stay on track.

gal37018_ch09_225_258.indd 252 3/28/18 12:37 PM