Groupthink in Business: Symptoms and Solutions

Groups affected by Groupthink ignore alternatives. A group is especially vulnerable to Groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear management processes for decision-making.

The symptoms of Groupthink are:

1. Illusion of superiority – excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
   
   The calling of the General Election in the UK, the Referendum in 2016 are examples of a false belief.
2. Collective rationalisation – group members ignore warnings and do not challenge their own assumptions.
   
   Its easy to get locked into a belief about something because the group is insular.
3. Belief in inherent morality – the group members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
   
   Morality can become an internally created norm without outside influence to modify and codify it appropriately.
4. Stereotyped views of external stakeholders and competition – negative views of those outside the organisation/group make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
   
   People can often see other departments and other organisations as the enemy. They can even begin to identify the customer as someone to be despised if they are not willing to challenge themselves and what the organisation is doing.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – individual members are under pressure not to challenge any of the group’s views.
   
   Whistleblowers are usually seen as a threat to organisations like this. As well as discouraging whistleblowers, the group demands loyalty and adherence to the ‘plan’.
6. Conformity – doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
   
   People get promoted, absorbed into groups/organisations because they ‘fit’.
7. Illusion of unanimity – the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mind guards' – group members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
   
   This and the other symptoms are often found in political parties, organisations that find themselves under threat (i.e., from competition or changes in the business environment) and new start-ups where the founder’s views are sacred. When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a real danger that Groupthink will happen. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make an urgent or important decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing Groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by Groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

Groupthink may be prevented by adopting some of the following:

A critical evaluator (e.g. the role of ‘Monitor Evaluator’ in the Belbin Team Role Profile™) can assist, though it is hard for groups/organisations to accept such individuals. Even harder for someone to take that unenviable role. This is when a Facilitator can help the group. They won’t play the role of a ME, however, they will use tools and techniques to simulate the ME’s way of challenging the group. Although it may be uncomfortable because the group will be caused to pause and evaluate what they are doing. This will be invaluable. It can prevent poor analysis, unrealistic solutions and help create better decision making.

See ‘Shaper’ in the Belbin Team Role Profile™. The leader should avoid, as far as possible, stating preferences and expectations at the outset. There are exceptions of course – for example when the group needs to know the limitations or boundaries of any solutions they might make, then the leader must speak up.

The Facilitator should create a Contract with the Task Leader as to the style the leader will adopt, which can range from Telling through to Delegating authority to the group. The Facilitator will invite the Task Leader to explain to the group, the role they will be taking with the group, and just as important – they must stick to that unless something drastic happens. I was once Facilitating a team when the Leader received an email changing the relationship between the company and their customer. This required the Task Leader to step forward and express their views and the context in which the company would react. On another occasion the Task Leader had decided to take a prominent role, and then realised that the members of the group were much more au fait with the situation (on the ground) and they stepped back and adopted a more hands-off style.

Whenever appropriate the Facilitator will encourage members of the group to work in sub-groups and in pairs/trios to make their deliberations and then report back to the group on their ideas or conclusions. This is particularly appropriate when there are several tasks that the group needs to tackle, or different options need to be considered. In addition, the Facilitator can use different Formats to encourage people’s contribution. When an expert/specialist needs to be heard then the Facilitator might use ‘One to All’, meaning that person gets to speak to the whole group. In one particular workshop, I knew from the Task Leader that an Economist in the team needed to make the group aware of a specific scenario. He was invited to prepare a presentation and gave it to the group.  A note to any budding Facilitators: offer support in the preparation of the presentation – sometimes ‘experts’ can get carried away and deliver a presentation that is too ‘heavy’ and too long! Alternatively, when there is a risk of individuals dominating the conversation, then the Facilitator will apply the ‘All’ Format, where every person writes their thoughts separately and then they are considered together.

The Facilitator should encourage the team leader/Director/Manager to bring in people from outside to invigorate/challenge the team/organisation viewpoint. It can be disturbing for the group; however, the Facilitator can manage the process and help the team to see things from a different perspective. However, the Facilitator should avoid being mislead by a leader who wants to impose their view on the group by having it validated externally. It must be a genuine desire to inform – see e) below.

The leader should ensure that any warning signals from competitors or stakeholders are examined and that the group identifies scenarios to meet the challenges they present. The Facilitator in this instance will be applying the Model: U – I – A = O + E . Where ‘U’ is Understanding (the external context and environment).

U I A = O+E means: Understanding, Impact, Action = Ownership and Empowerment.

The Facilitator should design a Process that encourages the group to question their assumptions, conclusions, potential solutions and plans. The ‘Solve’ Model can help the group to be systematic in its approach to problems and provide challenges to ideas before they get ‘hard-wired’ into people’s thinking.

Solve™ - Problem Solving and Solution Finding Model:

•   Stage One - Situational Analysis 
•   Stage Two - Solution Finding

Using effective Models, Tools and Techniques can counter Groupthink and help maintain the integrity of the group’s interactions and deliberations. Process ensures that the group undertakes this rigorous analysis and it avoids the syndrome of one person being asked to take on the critical or monitor evaluator role.

The collation of information and the subsequent judgment of the data by the whole group should be formulised by an effective Process that enables the group as a whole, to select critical issues, identify probable causes, evaluate potential solutions, and define a workable action plan, free of adverse consequences. The Facilitator needs to use the most appropriate Tools and Techniques they have in their ‘arsenal’.

They need to match them to the detail of the data being presented, the complexity of the information and the urgency of the problem and the seriousness of the situation. Different Techniques like different artisan Tools do different things and suit different situations – good Facilitators deploy the right Tool/Technique at the right time and do it effortlessly and without fanfare or favouritism of the method or the individuals.

Collaboration vs Groupthink should be underpinning desire of any team / department /organisation. Using someone that has an achieved qualification through the Facilitation training courses will assist the organisation to achieve:

• Enhanced productivity and project management delivery
• More effective problem solving and stakeholder engagement
• More effective business processes.

These benefits are delivered by bringing together a group of individuals, either physically or online, using some of the collaboration software that is now readily available, and to work through a structured approach the benefits of which can be summarised as follows:

• The higher the quality of individual input regarding subject matter at the beginning of the group interaction the higher the quality of the group performance.
• The more individual inputs are independent of each one another at the beginning of the group interaction the higher the quality of the group performance.
• The more the group performance includes individual input, the higher the quality of the group performance.
• The more comprehensible the individual input is for each group member, the higher the quality of the group performance.
• High quality individual input influences the final group decision, the higher the quality of the group performance.

Final note: Every business activity involves meetings.  Unfortunately, the word ‘meeting’ often conjures up very negative thoughts (based on actual experience of bad meetings). Renaming these events as ‘workshops’ will not automatically change the nature of them. However, understanding the weaknesses of ‘meetings’ per say and instead using Process, created, designed and managed by a Facilitator can revolutionise team and corporate performance and drive up moral.