'Groupthink'
How our desire for harmony and conformity results in irrational and/or dysfunctional decisions.
There’s an issue related to ‘narrative fallacy’ I’ve once looked into for an organization.
And that’s the issue of ‘groupthink.’ It seems to sit at the opposite end of individual exceptionalism, however it’s a close cousin—the same mechanisms of insecurity and desire to belong at work, only different clothes.
On Value in Culture is a reader-supported guide to the role of narrative, language, and art in how we organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. Support my work with a paid subscription.
We feel the effects of ‘groupthink’ the most in decision-making. When we’re in a group, we turn to each other for clues on how to behave. We do it even when we can’t see each other in social media—hence mobs.
Psychologist Irvin Janis has made important contributions to the study of group dynamics. He published some of his research and studies in Victims of Groupthink. the book is from 1972, but as human things go, is still relevant—perhaps even more today.
First a definition. What does ‘groupthink’ mean?
a defective decision-making process in which member conformity to the majority or a leader psychologically obtains over honest opinion or doubt, loyalty wins out over dissent and concurrence over deviation—all reinforced by subtle in-group pressures.
Janis limits his case studies to modern American diplomacy. The explanations of how White House Cabinets can talk themselves into horrendous decisions has never been more valuable than it is right now.
What are the symptoms?
As Janis explains they include a deceptive sense of invulnerability, collective rationalization and dismissal of unwelcome contrary warnings, a shared belief in the group’s superior moral position.
He also lists stereotypical and inaccurate views of the enemy’s power and determination, a clear desire for group consensus, and the emergence of member ‘mindguards’ who sniff out signs of wavering and minimize counterarguments.
Though applied to politics these ideas could oversimplify, they’re useful in business. These dynamics could sabotage any group, including those that go under the benign name of tribe, when it sets itself above the law and tries to protect itself at all costs.
Our social nature and the need to belong prompt us to find our tribe.
Businesses and brands have used assessments and quizzes to attract and segment customers, in other words to segment a tribe. Here’s an example of tribal marketing from Ducati.
How can we keep things from turning ugly?
In studies of social clubs and other small groups, conformity pressures have frequently been observed. Whenever a member says something that sounds out of line with the group’s norms, the other members at first increase their communication with the deviant.
[...]
But if they fail after repeated attempts, the amount of communication they direct toward the deviant decreases markedly. The members begin to exclude him.
[...]
[T]he more cohesive the group and the more relevant the issues to the goals of the group, the greater is the inclination of the members to reject a nonconformist.
Irvin Janis
Cohesive groups and tribes tend to reinforce their own views. The trouble begins when they reject the words of those who disagree. Groups use a variety of techniques to encourage conformity.
Eight signs
Perhaps you can use these short prompts to diagnose whether your organization is suffering from ‘groupthink.’
1. The illusion of invulnerability—which culturally could translate into the super hero complex, except we’re not super heroes and fall prey to this illusion when we take extreme risks, ignore danger, and are overly optimistic.
2. The illusion of morality—when we believe our decisions are morally correct while we discount or ignore ethical consequences.
3. The collective rationalization—happens when we discredit and explain away warnings that are contrary to our belief system.
4. Out group stereotyping—the active construction of negative stereotypes of rivals. When we say things like, ‘you’re with us or against us,’ it’s a sign that we don’t have substantive critiques to offer, so we take a position.
5. Pressure to conform—views opposition as disloyalty. When anyone in the group expresses an argument that goes against the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments they are being disloyal. The pressure to ‘comply or explain’ puts the dissenter on the spot.
6. Self-censorship—occurs when people start withholding their dissenting views and counter arguments. This happens because people want to preserve their place in the group and not make waves. Also see how its companion—self-censoring—could lower our ambition.
7. The illusion of unanimity—is present when we perceive that everyone agrees with us, therefore it's not worth understanding an issue.
8. The appearance of ‘mindguards’—some members of the group appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from averse information that might threaten the group. This is where censoring, removing and blocking happen. They burn the books for you.
Each technique contains the trap that keeps us from rational judgement and critical thinking in its name.
In this environment we start looking at problems only through one lens. We see all information—news, data points, stories—through the filter or prisms established by the group. Hence we don’t know what the group doesn’t know (or want to know.)
Our attention deficit compounds the problem. In an age of continuous partial attention, people prefer not to get involved with information. Involvement means commitment, and everyone is already maxed out.
But when it comes to decision-making, we want to escape ‘groupthink’ and engage with filter success by becoming more diligent in developing and then recording our thinking, remembering data points, and revisiting often as we come across and actively seek new data points and conflicting information.
In organizations we can structure decision-making to reduce the odds in favor of ‘groupthink’—by, for example, asking the leader to express preferences after all voices have been heard, encourage questions and pay attention to the dissenters, taking their arguments seriously.
They’re simple things we can do in meetings that, in Janis’ view, could reduce the odds of dire consequences coming from ‘groupthink.’