Scribd
Upload
750 views

Groupthink Case Answers

The document discusses groupthink and how to prevent it. It provides examples of factors that can lead to groupthink, such as self-censorship and an illusion of unanimity. It also discusses how dissent from higher-status group members and cultivating a norm of open discussion can help guard against groupthink. Finally, it notes that smaller, more cohesive groups are more prone to groupthink than larger groups with more diversity of opinions.

Uploaded by

Yunsung Francisco Jo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
750 views

Groupthink Case Answers

The document discusses groupthink and how to prevent it. It provides examples of factors that can lead to groupthink, such as self-censorship and an illusion of unanimity. It also discusses how dissent from higher-status group members and cultivating a norm of open discussion can help guard against groupthink. Finally, it notes that smaller, more cohesive groups are more prone to groupthink than larger groups with more diversity of opinions.

Uploaded by

Yunsung Francisco Jo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case Incident 2

The Dangers of Groupthink

Questions
1. What are some factors that led to groupthink in the cases described here? What can teams do to attempt to prevent
groupthink from occurring?
 Groupthink stems from many factors. For instance, in the first example regarding the Air Force base, the main
contributing factors include self-censorship and the illusion of unanimity or total union/agreement of the group
because the case states that “no one wanted to question the team’s solidarity”.
 Then discuss the reasons for the remaining two case examples.
 Teams can attempt to reduce groupthink by taking more time on tasks, by allowing more input and discussion,
by providing a fair hearing of opposing ideas, etc.

2. How might differences in status among group members contribute to groupthink? For example, how might lower-status
members react to a group’s decision? Are lower-status members more or less likely to be dissenters? Why might higher-
status group members be more effective dissenters?
 Lower status members may be more likely to “go along to get along”, thus strengthening the tendency for a
group to move toward false consensus.
 Higher-status members are more effective dissenters because they are less likely to fear recrimination for
speaking against the group. Higher-status members may use their heightened power to be critical and question
the group’s ideas (they assume the role of critical evaluator). Higher-status members may also know more
individuals outside of the group, which avoids the isolation of the group.

3. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says that he encourages dissent. Can such norms guard against the occurrence of groupthink?
As a manager, how would you try to cultivate norms that prevent groupthink?
 Dissention as a rule greatly decreases the chances of groupthink. Creating a norm of dissention is similar to
creating an open climate in the group. An open climate is characterized by free discussion, nonjudgmental
attitudes, and acceptance of divergent thinking.
 As a team you would then come up with a set of rules for groups to follow in order to establish and maintain an
“open climate”.

4. How might group characteristics such as size and cohesiveness affect groupthink?
 Groups that are smaller tend to be more cohesive and are more prone to groupthink. Large groups tend to bring
more diversity of opinions and rank.

Source: Based on C. Hawn, “Fear and Posing,” Forbes, March 25, 2002, pp. 22-25; and J. Sandberg, “Some Ideas Are So Bad That Only Team Efforts Can Account for
Them,” Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2004, p. B1.

You might also like