Surojeet Sadhu

Brajesh Pandey

Mahendra Singh

Rishabh Garg

Ankit Garg

Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.

An Air force general had formed a team to develop a better way to handle base’s mail system which included important letters from high ranking military individuals. The team was composed mostly of civilians. But finally the plan which came up was not a process improvement plan. Instead of the previous process which took 8 days, the new process resulted in 19 days. Even though the team members all knew that the new system was worse than the earlier one, no one wanted to question the team solidarity.

In Late 1990’s Virginia Turezyn, M.D. of Infinity Capital invested in several dotcoms, including I drive. It was losing money as the company was providing free storage to it’s customers Turezyn pointed out in the board meeting that the company was spending too much money without any gain. But her question fell on deaf ears and the she got a reply from the younger executives that if they do not do it then it will lose the customers. Turezyn thought at that moment that the younger executives might be right & may be she is not able to understand the strategy. But Later on I-drive filed for bankruptcy. And Turezyn became a victim of Group thinking.

Steve blank , an entrepreneur, was a dot com investor. In one of the Board meetings he tried to persuade the fellow board members to change the business model to be more traditional. He asked them to invest the raised amount in acquiring a customer base than on building a Brand. But the CEO of the company told him that the rules of the game had changed and the team had taken a right decision. Later on the company lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on the deal. Thus Steve became a victim of Group thinking.

• Size & Cohesiveness of the group.

• The group limiting its discussion to only a few alternatives.

• the group failing to reexamine those alternatives originally disfavored by the majority.

•Opinions of Experts is not taken into consideration.

•Due to shy behavior some members don’t raise their opinions.

•Members are pressurized to conform to the unanimous decision taken by team.

• Facts, information are not properly checked & analyzed. Market survey is not properly done.

•Members try to avoiding responsibility by relying on the expertise and knowledge of others.

•Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

• Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.

•Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.

• The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.

•All effective alternatives should be strictly analyzed and examined.

• Invite others into the group to bring fresh ideas.

• Independent Board Of Directors should be inducted in the meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.

•At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil’s advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.

Question 2)

High Status members in a group are given a wider range of discretion. They tend to be more assertive ,criticize more, state more commands and interrupt others more often. The status differences actually inhibit diversity of ideas and creativity in groups because lower-status members tend to be less active participants in group discussions and their expertise and insights are not likely to be fully utilized and they become less participative do not raise their opinion which results in a groupthink.

Question 4) How might group characteristics such as size and cohesiveness affect groupthink?

Although size affects diversity of views but people grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, they likely to feel less personal responsibility as group gets larger. Again because of large group size social loafing may occur where individuals expand less effort and conform to the group decision without any counter views. This generates the pressure on individuals holding counter views to reserve it to themselves.

When a group is too cohesive, there is a tremendous desire of unanimity. Seeking consensus becomes an end in itself. There members tend to become unwilling to criticize one anothers’ ideas or suggestions

Thank you