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 earths 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 groups 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
groups 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 members 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

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

How board meetings should be!

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

Series of horrific clashes

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

A DEFECT WAS DISCOVERED IN FIRESTONE TIRES

101
people
died in
crashes
involving
tread
separatio
n in tires
between
1992 -

2226
Complain
ts

>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
machines 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 devils advocate to question the groups
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 devils
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 devils advocate

Basic devils 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 devils advocacy is seen in
dialectical inquiry system. This technique focuses
on full consideration of alternatives. Group is

To be a successful devils advocate

Focus on the evidence.
Dont hide behind the term.
Take the other side sometimes
Rejoice if youre 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 size
2. Executive management Tenure
3. Organizational Factors
4. 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
operatingshift 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 socioeconomic background.

This perspective seems to reflect reality

more closely than traditional laboratory
experiments on risky shift

Group Members

AAKRITI AGRAWAL
FT164001
AANCHAL SHARMA
FT164002
ABHINAV RAJ
FT164003
ABHIRAM POTHURI
FT164004
ABHISHEK MAHESHWARI
FT164005
ABHISHEK MISHRA
FT164006
ABHISHEK THYAGARAJAN FT164007
ADITYA GUPTA
FT164008
ADITYA SARIN
FT164009
AKSHAY KUMAR
FT164010

THANK YOU