Groupthink

1. Group cohesiveness can lead to poor decision-making

The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against out-groups.

Cohesion breeds complacency. When a group becomes highly cohesive, members often prioritize maintaining harmony over critically evaluating decisions. This can lead to a false sense of unanimity and overconfidence in the group's judgments.

Symptoms emerge gradually. As group cohesion increases, members become more reluctant to voice dissenting opinions or challenge the prevailing view. This creates an echo chamber effect where flawed assumptions go unchallenged and risky decisions seem less dangerous than they actually are.

Balance is key. While some level of cohesion is necessary for effective teamwork, groups must actively work to maintain independent thinking. This requires creating an environment where disagreement is valued and members feel safe expressing doubts or concerns about group decisions.

2. Groupthink symptoms include illusion of invulnerability and stereotyping of out-groups

An important symptom of groupthink is the illusion of being invulnerable to the main dangers that might arise from a risky action in which the group is strongly tempted to engage.

Overconfidence blinds. Groups suffering from groupthink often develop an exaggerated sense of their own capabilities and underestimate potential risks. This illusion of invulnerability leads to excessive optimism and a willingness to take extreme risks.

Simplistic views prevail. Another key symptom is the tendency to view opponents or out-groups in simplistic, often derogatory terms. This stereotyping:

• Dehumanizes the "enemy"
• Reduces empathy
• Oversimplifies complex situations
• Reinforces the group's sense of moral superiority

Self-censorship increases. As these symptoms take hold, group members become less likely to voice doubts or contradictory information. This creates a false sense of unanimity, further reinforcing the group's flawed assumptions and risky decisions.

3. Historical fiascoes like Bay of Pigs and Pearl Harbor show groupthink in action

It seems improbable that the shocking number of errors can be attributed to lack of intellectual capability for making policy judgments.

Intelligent people, poor decisions. The Bay of Pigs invasion and the lack of preparedness at Pearl Harbor demonstrate how even highly capable individuals can make disastrous decisions when groupthink takes hold. In both cases, warning signs and contradictory evidence were ignored or rationalized away.

Shared illusions persisted. Key features of groupthink evident in these cases include:

• Illusion of invulnerability (e.g., belief that Castro's forces were weak)
• Collective rationalization of warnings
• Stereotyped views of the enemy
• Self-censorship of doubts
• Illusion of unanimity

Consequences were severe. These historical examples show the potentially catastrophic results of groupthink in high-stakes decision-making. They underscore the need for organizations to actively work to prevent groupthink, especially in matters of national security and foreign policy.

4. Leadership practices can exacerbate or mitigate groupthink tendencies

The more actively the leader of a cohesive policy-making group promotes his own preferred solution, the greater are the chances of a consensus based on groupthink, even when the leader does not want the members to be yes-men and the individual members try to resist conforming.

Leaders set the tone. When a leader strongly advocates for a particular position or solution, it becomes much harder for group members to voice opposing views or critically evaluate alternatives. This can create a rush to consensus around the leader's preferred option.

Impartiality is crucial. To counteract groupthink, leaders should:

• Avoid stating preferences early in the decision-making process
• Encourage devil's advocate roles and dissenting opinions
• Model openness to changing their mind based on new information
• Create an environment where challenging ideas is valued

Structural changes help. Beyond personal leadership style, organizational practices can be implemented to reduce groupthink. These might include regularly bringing in outside experts, using subgroups to develop competing recommendations, or institutionalizing a "second chance" meeting to voice lingering doubts before finalizing decisions.

5. Insulation of the group from outside perspectives increases groupthink risk

The more insulated a cohesive group of executives becomes, the greater are the chances that its policy decisions will be products of groupthink.

Echo chambers amplify errors. When decision-making groups become isolated from outside input, they lose access to valuable perspectives and information that could challenge their assumptions. This insulation reinforces existing biases and makes it harder to recognize flawed thinking.

Diversity of thought is essential. To combat insulation, organizations should:

• Regularly bring in outside experts and consultants
• Encourage members to seek input from their own networks
• Create cross-functional teams for important decisions
• Rotate membership in long-standing committees

Information flow matters. Even when groups aren't physically isolated, they can become informationally insulated. Leaders must ensure that relevant data and opposing viewpoints reach the decision-makers, even if that information contradicts the prevailing group opinion.

6. Effective decision-making requires critical evaluation and diverse viewpoints

The leader of a policy-forming group should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member, encouraging the group to give high priority to airing objections and doubts.

Institutionalize dissent. Effective groups make critical evaluation a core part of their process. This can be done by:

• Assigning devil's advocate roles
• Requiring members to generate counterarguments to their own positions
• Creating a norm of expressing doubts and concerns

Seek cognitive diversity. Groups benefit from including members with different backgrounds, expertise, and thinking styles. This diversity helps surface a wider range of perspectives and potential solutions.

Value substantive disagreement. Conflict around ideas (not personalities) should be seen as a sign of a healthy decision-making process. Leaders must create an environment where members feel safe challenging prevailing opinions and exploring unpopular alternatives.

7. Structural and procedural changes can help prevent groupthink

The organization should routinely follow the administrative practice of setting up several independent policy-planning and evaluation groups to work on the same policy question, each carrying out its deliberations under a different leader.

Multiple perspectives reduce bias. By having different groups work independently on the same problem, organizations can:

• Generate a wider range of potential solutions
• Identify blind spots in any single group's thinking
• Reduce the impact of any one leader's biases

Procedural safeguards matter. Other structural changes that can help prevent groupthink include:

• Regular use of outside experts
• Subgroup deliberations before full group discussions
• "Second chance" meetings to voice lingering doubts
• Assigning specific members to play devil's advocate roles

Flexibility is key. The exact mix of preventive measures will depend on the organization and the nature of the decisions being made. The goal is to create a decision-making environment that balances cohesion with critical thinking and diverse input.

8. The Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrates successful avoidance of groupthink

From the various accounts of the thirteen days of agitated deliberations, it is apparent that the members of the Executive Committee continuously disagreed with each other despite strong pressures to develop a consensus.

Learning from failure. The Kennedy administration, having experienced the Bay of Pigs fiasco, implemented several changes in their decision-making process during the Cuban Missile Crisis:

• Encouraging critical evaluation and dissent
• Bringing in outside experts
• Using subgroups to develop competing recommendations
• The President avoiding early advocacy of a particular solution

Vigorous debate ensued. These changes resulted in a much more thorough exploration of alternatives and potential consequences. The group was able to resist premature consensus and develop a nuanced response to a highly dangerous situation.

Positive outcome achieved. The successful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrates that groups can make high-quality decisions under extreme pressure when they actively work to prevent groupthink.

9. Groupthink is not limited to American policy-making groups

From recent discussions with specialists in European history, I have the strong impression that I could find excellent candidates for an analysis of groupthink tendencies in many times and places—in the city-states of ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy, as well as in the capitals of post-Renaissance Europe.

Universal phenomenon. While the examples in the book focus primarily on American foreign policy decisions, groupthink is a risk in any cohesive decision-making group. Historical examples from other cultures and time periods demonstrate its pervasiveness.

Cultural factors may influence. The specific manifestations of groupthink might vary across cultures, but the core dynamics of prioritizing group harmony over critical evaluation appear to be universal. Some cultures may be more prone to certain aspects of groupthink than others.

Global relevance. Understanding and preventing groupthink is important for organizations and governments worldwide. The lessons and preventive measures discussed in the book have broad applicability beyond the American context.

10. Preventing groupthink requires balancing cohesion with critical thinking

A cohesive group that on one occasion suffers from groupthink is capable on other occasions of gaining the advantages of high morale and free expression of dissent, depending on whether special conditions that promote groupthink are present.

Cohesion isn't inherently bad. Group cohesion can have many positive effects, including improved morale, communication, and commitment to shared goals. The key is to maintain these benefits while actively working to prevent groupthink.

Vigilance is ongoing. Even groups that have successfully avoided groupthink in the past must remain alert to its potential emergence. Factors that can increase groupthink risk include:

• High-stress situations
• Time pressure
• Overconfidence from past successes
• Changes in group composition or leadership

Culture of constructive dissent. The most effective long-term strategy for preventing groupthink is to create an organizational culture that values and rewards critical thinking, diverse perspectives, and the expression of doubts or concerns. This cultural shift requires consistent reinforcement from leadership and supporting structures and processes.

Last updated: November 13, 2024