Group Think in Organizations

What is Groupthink? Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. Irving Jarvis, who did extensive research on the subject, best defined Groupthink as "A mode of thinking that people engage in when deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." In otherwords Groupthink happens when a group who is tasked with making a decision takes the path of least resistence and follows one charismatic leader's suggested course. They all fall in line and conform even when some members of the group have misgivings about the choice made.
We see the symptoms of this all the time in life. The one kid in the group who doesn't feel right about drinking and driving but goes along with it; the politician who doesn't agree with a particular party platform but doesn't want to be labeled a traitor to the party so he goes along with it; an employee who disagrees with a decision that their boss has made and knows that their fellow employees also disagrees with but doesn't speak up either because the fear of losing their job or just being labeled as a black sheep. In all these examples there was a decision made that everyone unanimously agreed to although the decision wasn't necessarily the right one. In all cases of groupthink there are members who have misgivings but often withold them or are pressured into withholding their opinions. Instead of taking a lot of space discussing the symptoms and all the outcomes I'll make some generalized statements about group think and then post links below to read more about it.

Results of Groupthink
Groupthink creates a loss of "cognitive diversity" in that people withhold their opinions and insight from the process of decision making and as a result either the full potential of the situation isn't fully maximized (for example had 3M not encouraged their employees input the post-it note may never have seen the light of day....neither would the over $100 million of revenue that the product  has brought to 3M since its inception) or an even more detrimental outcome would ensue because the leader makes a decision thats poorly planned and possibly harmful but no one speaks up. Like the Bay of Pigs.
Irving Janis suggested that groupthink was the cause of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. President Kennedy had surrounded himself with so many sychophantic yes-men who just went along with his plan without offering any concerns and what resulted was a near-disaster. Fortunately, President Kennedy soon realized his failure to pick individuals in his cabinet who would push against him to help him make the right decision. These yes-men had been enablers to a disastrous decision and had led him into a false sense of security. Fortunately he learned from his mistake as evidenced by his decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Dr. Janis said "During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures."

In the workplace groupthink is entirely too common, especially given the current economic conditions. Millions of Americans are out of work and given those circumstances we see more and more that employees are scared to give their opinion or to object to poor decisions made my managers, because they don't want to be the next American in the unemployment line. Make no mistake about it, "legally" a company can't fire you for voicing your opinion but they can fire you for insubordination, causing what they construe as a "hostile work environment" and they sure as heck can make your life miserable forcing you to quit. This is another example of the perfect-exterior-with-the-defunct-interior company. On the outside they "conform" to all the laws, they'd never outright fire you for voiceing your opinion, but they can make you pay in other ways--and they do.
In my current job we're going through a process where our goals are being revamped. In my manager's opinion some of our goals are a little too whimpy. Additionally, many of the dental office's we are assigned to assist come to us via a report generated in excel that's never ever accurate. We waste so much time going through reports to weed out the offices that shouldn't be on it that a tension has permeated our department. This problem could be easily remedied with our management taking an extra 5 minutes a day to manage the reports they create instead of just hitting the go button, it could be remedied by our manager asking for input on our goals or sitting with a few of us to see what we do and get an idea of why some processes take longer than she estimates they should. We have all communicated via instant messenger about our frustrations with our manager and supervisor, we but no one wants to speak up because no one wants to be black listed. So we just go along with their policies and procedures, never speaking up. The fault here is equally shared--us because we don't have the courage to speak up and management because they have never reasonably dealt with our objections in the past.


I take courage as I see some of the emerging business leaders of the future and some of the companies of the future. Take Zappos.com for example, Tony Hseia (pronounced Shay) is their CEO who has elevated this company to outstanding returns for their investors. This man will go down in history as a revolutionary figure in the e-commerce and management trends and yet walking into his building there is no 4th floor huge office. Tony has a cubicle on the main floor surrounded by regular-$13 an hour employees. He encourages feedback, encourages individuality. He wants his people to have fun with their customers and with their fellow employees. Tony knows what issues even the lowliest employee deals with because he sits 5 feet away from them in a cubicle.
Studies have confirmed time and time again that the better a company treats their employees the better that company does financially. A happy employee is an employee who feels he matters to his company, who feels their input is not only encouraged but necessary to grow a business, and is given autonomy in the workplace. That employee will perform better, treat your customer better, and seek to improve the entire company that cares for them. This is a symbiotic relationship that unfortunately many haven't bought into...yet. This is what I want to do with my career. I want to help generate a paradigm shift in employee-employer relations and management styles.