Groupthink Causes Failure example essay topic

Group Think Question #2 This type of dysfunctional operation of an organization has many ways and opportunities for failure. The basic fundamentals of this process are the beginnings of failure as groups seek conformity and unity they sacrifice everything in order to maintain peace within the group. Many times this will take the individuals creative thoughts and ability to voice the creative edge thinking away. In many organizations this is a process that is continually used. It is perceived that management wants the organizations operation or process to run without any type of question or waves. Below are listed eight of the main symptoms of group think as detailed by Janis, I. L & Manns book "Decision making " Symptoms of Groupthink are divided into three types in which they can manifest themselves: Type I: Over estimations of the group's power and morality Type II: Closed-mindedness Type : Pressure toward uniformity When broken down the three types of groupthink can be broken farther down to eight ways groupthink causes failure.

1. Illusion of invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risks, and are overly optimistic. 2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warnings contrary to group thinking. 3. Illusions of Morality: Members believe that their decisions are morally correct ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

4. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group. 5. Pressure for Conformity: Members' pressure any in a group who expresses arguments against the groups's tereotypes, illusions, or commitment, viewing such opposition and disloyalty.

6. Self-censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter arguments. 7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group decision silence is seen as consent. 8. Mind guards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group compliance.

Personal styles are limited by the group with GROUP THINK. Most of the time the individual will not take the chance to buck the system or willing to take the chance of being discredited by the core group if they do not agree with the process and or direction that is being lead. Decision styles are affected by Group Think by mindset of the different team members and the effect and impact depends on the pressures created by the dominate powers driving the decisions being made. Decision making is affected by the Group Think because of the lack of openness that should be displayed and offered by everyone involved.

The development of the organization is dependent on the ability of the group to make decisions that are thought through and not made solely on pressures and accepted or narrow minded ways that are not thought out. More specifically, whenever a group making policy displays most of the symptoms of Groupthink then 'we can expect to find that the group also displays symptoms of defective decision-making. Seven such examples are as Janis states: 1. Incomplete survey of alternatives. 2. Incomplete survey of objectives.

3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice. 4. Failure to reappraise initially rejected alternative. 5. Poor information search.

6. Selective bias in processing information at hand. 7. Failure to work out contingency plans. One of the worst Groupthink decisions ever was the decision to launch the Space shuttle Challenger. 'On the morning of January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger blasted off from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida Seventy-three seconds after the countdown clock reached zero the Challenger exploded.

Immediately after the explosion President Reagan appointed a commission to find out why the Challenger exploded. 'In a five-volume published report, the presidential commission identified the primary cause of the accident as a failure in the joint between two stages of the rocket that allowed hot gases to escape during the 'burn. ' Volatile rocket fuel spewed out when a rubber O-ring failed to seal the joint (Griffin, 1997). ' 'The average citizen could understand the mechanics of the commission's finding. After all, everyone knows what happens when you pour gasoline on an open flame. What people found difficult to fathom was why NASA had launched the Challenger when there was good reason to believe the conditions weren't safe.

In addition to the defective seal, the commission also concluded that a highly flawed decision process was an important contributing cause of the disaster (Griffin, 1997). ' On the day before the launch of the Challenger, one of the Morton Thiokol engineers warned that the flight might be risky. He being part of the team responsible for the rocket boosters performance they were worried about the low launch temperatures. The team knew that the O-ring seals had never been tested at temperatures lower than 53 degree fahrenheit. '... as Thiokol engineer Roger Bois joly later testified, getting the O-ring to seal gaps with the temperature in the 20's was like 'trying to shove a brick into a crack versus a sponge. ' (Griffen, 1997). ' The O-ring seals had long been classified a critical component on the rocket motor, 'A failure point-without back-up that could cause a loss of life or vehicle if the component failed.

' This being known Thiokol engineers raised their concerns at a teleconference, 'NASA personnel discounted their concerns and urged them to reconsider their recommendation. ' With this added pressure from NASA Thiokol reversed their 'no-go' position about the Challenger launch. 'At the top of the flight readiness review chain, Jesse Moore had every reason to believe that the shuttle was 'A-OK (Griffen, 1997). ' Janis proposes nine ways in which to safeguard against Groupthink.

1. '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. This practice needs to be reinforced by the leader's acceptance of criticism of his or her own judgment in order to discourage the members from soft-pedaling their disagreements (Janis, 1972). ' 2.

'The leaders in an organization's hierarchy, when assigning a policy planning mission to a group, should be impartial instead of stating preferences and expectations at the outset (Janis, 1972). ' 3. 'The organizations 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 (Janis, 1972). ' 4. 'Throughout the period when the feasibility and effectiveness of policy alternatives are being surveyed, the policy-making group should from time to time divide into two or more subgroups to meet separately, under different chairpersons, and then come together to hammer out their differences (Janis, 1972). ' 5.

'Each member of the policy-making group should discuss periodically the group's deliberations with trusted associates in his or her own unit of the organizations and report back their reactions (Janis, 1972). ' 6. 'One or more outside experts or qualified colleagues within the organization who are not core members of the policy-making group should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis and should be encourage to challenge the views of the core members (Janis, 1972). ' 7. 'At every meeting devoted to evaluating policy alternatives, at least one member should be assigned the role of devil's advocate (Janis, 1972).

' 8. 'Whenever the policy issue involved relations with a rival nation or organization, a sizable block or time (perhaps an entire session) should be spent surveying all warning signals from the rivals and constructing alternative scenarios of the rivals' intentions (Janis, 1972). ' 9. 'After reaching a preliminary consensus about what seems to be the best policy alternative, the policy-making group should hold a 'second chance' meeting at which the members are expected to express as vividly as they can all their residual doubts and to rethink the entire issue before making a definitive choice (Janis, 1972). ' Groupthink has many examples which have shown that it will lead to failure. That being said I do however believe that the label of Groupthink can be used too loosely.

I myself have experienced situations where a Group is too quick to label themselves as sufferers of Groupthink. Although I truly think that Groupthink is a severe problem that exists today, the Challenger being one of the most disastrous of those examples. I believe that we all need to be careful not to be too swift about the use of the Groupthink label. It can be just as negative to a group to label them as wronged in their process when no such error exists as to call them victims of Groupthink.

Again the dilemma is that groups need to always be alert to the existence of Groupthink, they also need to not label themselves or other victims of Groupthink unfairly. Although there are many times that Groupthink leads to failure, there are few instances when it works for the food. This is a fine line to walk, but it is most definitely a line that needs to be walked time and time again. Sources Jarvis, Chris.

GROUPTHINK Janis, Irving L. Victims Of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, 1972 Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, 1982 Griffin, Em. Groupthink. McGraw-Hill Inc., 1997.