The role and relevance of Understanding Group Think and Group shift processes among the members while taking decisions

Group Think and Group Shift

➢What are these??

➢Why should we care about it?

➢How can we prevent it?

Group Think:

Group think occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.

-Irving Janis (1972)

Group Shift

When people are in groups, they make decision about risk differently from when they are alone. In the group, they are likely to make riskier decisions, as the shared risk makes the individual risk less.

Group Think - Group Decision Making

What is Group Think?

➢Groupthink is the tendency of cohesive groups to reach consensus on issues without offering, seeking or considering alternate viewpoints.

➢ It happens when in-group pressures lead to a deterioration in mental efficiency, poor tasting of reality, and lax moral judgement.

➢Occurs in highly cohesive groups in which the group members desire for consensus becomes more important than evaluating problems and solutions realistically.

Group think led to fiascos

➢Groupthink has been blamed for decision making fiascos in politics, the military, as well as in business.

➢Sometimes groups of highly qualified and experienced people make very poor decisions.

Examples

➢Decision made by President John F. Kennedy and his advisers to launch the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1960.

➢The decision made by President Lyndon B. Johnson and his advisers between 1964 and 1967 to escalate the war in Vietnam;

➢The decision made by President Richard M. Nixon and his advisers to cover up the Watergate break-in in 1972

Examples Contd.

➢The decision made by NASA in 1986 to launch the Challenger space shuttle (which exploded after take off, killing all seven crew members).

➢The decision made by NASA in 2003 to launch the space shuttle Columbia (which exploded over Texas upon re-entering the earth’s atmosphere, killing all seven crew members)

Groupthink in an organization

➢Not just in politics or military, groupthink can affect organizations as well.

➢When a group of employees collectively decides to go on strike, the decision may be a product of groupthink.

Symptoms of Groupthink

➢ Invulnerability - Most or all group members develop an illusion of invulnerability, which causes them to become overly optimistic and take extreme risks.

➢ Rationalization - Group members collectively rationalize in order to discount warnings that might lead them to reconcile their assumptions before they commit themselves to their past policy decisions.

➢Morality - Group members develop an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore ethical or moral consequences of their decisions

➢ Stereotyping - Group members develop stereotyped views of opposition leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.

➢ Pressure - Group members apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.

➢ Self-Censorship - Group members censor themselves from any deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member’s inclination to minimize the importance of his or her doubts and counterarguments.

➢Unanimity - Group members perceive a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).

➢Mind guards - Some group members appoint themselves to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decision.

Most likelihood to occur when

➢The group is cohesive

➢The group becomes insulated from qualified outsiders.

➢The leader promotes his own favoured solution

How board meetings have been !

➢When receiving information, the board members may succumb to the persuasive power of their peers. This is often called groupthink and refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures

➢A high, diligent level of participation among board members at board meetings is necessary to reduce the negative effects of groupthink.

➢ If board members are able to respect the views of other board members even when these views might be different; If new board members are comfortable asking questions and whether there is a high level of ‘independent mindedness ‘on the board.

How board meetings should be!

Factor loading for various board members after a meeting

➢ This is a factor loading table prepared after talking to the board members of the meeting after a major decision.

➢ As you can see most of the group members tend to agree with their CEO and are not able to think and put forward their views individually.

➢ This is a consequence of groupthink which is not healthy for an organization

Factors to minimize groupthink

• One thing is to monitor group size. People grow intimidated and hesitant as group size increases and, although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, By requiring members to first focus on the negatives of a decision alternative, the group is less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.

Group Think in Foreign Policy• Social psychologist Irving Janis studied group dynamics. He

did extensive research and analysis on group decision making processes in US government foreign policies, conceptualizing the "Groupthink" theory in 1972.

• Because important foreign policy decisions are usually crafted by small groups of policymakers, it is important to examine the effects of group dynamics and features of groups on the choices those groups make.

• As Thomas Jefferson once stated, "Difference of opinion leads to inquiry and inquiry to truth."

Let us see how it affected highly qualified and experienced people in making poor decisions …

• The decision made by President John F. Kennedy and his advisers to launch the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1960 .

• The decision made by President Lyndon B. Johnson and his advisers between 1964 and 1967 to escalate the war in Vietnam.

• The decision made by President Richard M. Nixon and his advisers to cover up the Watergate break-in in 1972.

How Groupthink influenced the Ford/Firestone fiasco

➢ Founded by Harvey Firestone in 1900

➢ Now a part of Bridgestone Americas

➢ Supplies tires for various vehicles

➢ Founded by Henry Ford in 1903

➢ Global Auto Manufacturer

➢ Owns many automotive brands including Ford, Mercury, Lincoln and Volvo

➢ Series of horrific clashes involving Ford Explorers

➢ Investigators found a link between tread separation in tires, tire blowouts and vehicle rollovers.

BACKGROUND

A DEFECT WAS DISCOVERED IN FIRESTONE TIRES

101 people died in crashes involving tread separation in tires between 1992 - 1999

2226Complaints

>400 Injuries

➢ In 2000, after being informed of the numerous complaints, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) met with Ford and Firestone to discuss a plan of action.

➢ On August 2000, Ford and Firestone issued a recall of 6.5 million tires.

➢ Finger pointing and blame between Ford and Firestone followed.

➢ Both companies experienced defective decision making and lack of communication.

In the context of Groupthink

➢ Illusion of Invulnerability➢ Unquestioned belief in the Inherent Morality of the Group➢ Collective Rationalization➢ Out-Group Stereotypes➢ Self-Censorship

Illusion of Invulnerability – Being over- optimistic and taking extreme risks

➢ Both companies minimized the importance of internal data that showed the Ford Explorer failed safety tests.

➢ Despite the problems being reported earlier, neither company issued a product recall.

Unquestioned belief in the Inherent Morality of

the Group – decisions of the group are moral and beyond reproach

➢ Both companies defended their decisions using company prepared statistics that were sometimes based on flawed data.

➢ Ford accused Firestone of producing a defective tire while Firestone accused Ford of producing a flawed vehicle design.

Collective Rationalization – ignoring warning signals

that run contrary to group thinking

➢ Both companies ignored their liability despite the crash data that indicated rollovers were a factor in 95% of the deaths.

Out-Group Stereotypes - The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.

➢ Each company continued to criticize and put the blame on each other.

➢ Ford blamed Firestone for recommending wrong tire pressure.

➢ Firestone blamed Ford engineers and also the motorists for mistreating the tires.

Self Censorship - Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments

➢ Both companies chose not to disclose information that would reveal their accountability.

➢ Despite the knowledge that the tires were structurally defective and could only be corrected with a recall, both companies concealed this information.

What really happened

• All of the managers could not have been compelled to go forward with this

• Perception of others status – reduced input of thought • Negative impact on their career – because of a machine’s

performance – unthinkable !

Fear

• Fear of being Fired

• Fear of disagreement

What should have happened

• Promote creativity• Brain storm• Perform Risk Analysis • This will reduce groupthink…

Case Conclusion

How Leaders Avoid Group Think

Use a process that involves more than one technique for making a decision.➢ Take time at the beginning of the meeting to have a dialogue

about the problem.➢ Clarify the goal.➢Make a list of criteria for the decision.➢Use straw votes as initial polls,not as final decision makers.➢Ask probing questions.

Some effective methods to avoid groupthink

➢ Use a policy-forming group that reports to the larger group.➢ Let all members of the group voice an opinion before the

leader expresses an opinion.➢ Discuss within subgroups, then report back.➢ Divide into subgroups, then discuss differences.➢ Bring in outside experts.➢ Use a devil’s advocate to question the group’s ideas.➢ Hold a second-chance meeting to offer a last opportunity to

choose another course of action.

Brings out the critic in at least one person in a group of thinkers. In other words, a devil’s advocate is a person who tests a proposition by arguing against it.

First used in catholic churches in which a lawyer argues against canonization of a candidate to uncover any of his flaws.

This technique helps prevent groupthink and increases the chance of a high-quality decision.

Three types of devil’s advocate• Basic devil’s advocacy in which a person within the decision

making group is made to critique a preferred plan or opinion. This person will point out flaws in the plan so that inconsistencies can be pointed which may lead to failure in implementation.

• Another variant is multiple advocacy in which multiple advocates will share their critique for a decision or plan so that multiple view points are shared. This will improve the decision making and prevent group thinking.

• Third form of devil’s advocacy is seen in dialectical inquiry system. This technique focuses on full consideration of alternatives. Group is divided in two sides which debate advantages and disadvantages of proposed plans.

To be a successful devil’s advocate

➢ Focus on the evidence.

➢ Don’t hide behind the term.

➢ Take the other side sometimes

➢ Rejoice if you’re unsuccessful

➢ Interesting Fact – positives of avoiding group think!

Group Shift

➢ Group shift (or Risky shift) is a phenomenon in which the initial positions of individual members of a group are exaggerated toward a more extreme position.

➢ Shift toward a more extreme position in the direction in which they were

already leaning before the discussion; so conservative types become more cautious and the more aggressive types take on more risk. Ex: prejudiced Students and unprejudiced students in separate discussions.

Group Shift

➢ Group shift and Group Think

➢ Causes of group shift : Diffusion of responsibility, Social status in groups, High risk-takers inn group, perceiving less risk.

➢ Size of group impacts polarization and deindividualization.

Risky shift and ethical decision making

➢ The direction of an organization is in the hands of executive members.

➢ Choice between attractive but risky alternative and a less attractive but more cautious alternative. Ex : If the decision raises the stock price, the next decision tends to be more riskier.

➢ Factors affecting unethical decision making :1.Executive management team size2. Executive management Tenure3. Organizational Factors4. Power of Individual

➢ Researchers have developed ethical or moral decision-making models.

➢ Good understanding of the cause of a risky shift is needed before making decisions.

The Risky Shift in Policy Decision Making

➢ A fairly well documented phenomenon states that individuals tend to move towards riskier decisions after group discussions

➢ It is evident that the discovery of the risky shift was potentially very relevant for Policy Decision Making.

➢ This implies that different decision making mechanisms would have to be designed depending on the social desirability of risky or more conservative decisions outcomes

Pictorial Depiction

The beginning of this line of research

➢ Individuals answered a Choice dilemma Questionnaire (CDQ) to measure their risk-taking dispositions.

➢ The same respondents were then brought together and asked to develop a group solution to the same questionnaire choices. Invariably the group results tended to be more risk oriented than the foregoing individual solutions

➢ A general group dynamic principle seemed to be operating—shift towards riskier decisions

However..

➢ The universal nature of the phenomenon was called into serious question when it has been demonstrated that under certain specific situations no shift toward higher riskiness appeared, sometimes even conservative shifts were observed

➢ What started out as a universally valid characteristic of group versus individual decision making is now considered to be a consequence of various interacting factors

Modern contingency theoretical approaches

➢ Person related variables of the decision maker (P) and decision task (T) emerge in an attempts to explore the interaction and relative weight of various factors involved in arriving at the group risk factors influencing the decision making Process such as personal experience and socio-economic background.

➢ This perspective seems to reflect reality more closely than traditional laboratory experiments on risky shift

Thank You