The Groupthink Syndrome

Introduction

There are many failed decisions made by a group of minds that proved their shrewdness in their fields that astonish many people. Janis defines these defective decision making processes as “fiascoes” and explains the reason behind these failed decisions by modeling “the groupthink syndrome”.[1] Groupthink is the low quality thinking of a group when uniformity and loyalty within the group restricts the members of the group to conduct a more unrealistic and unethical decision making process that leads defective decisions.[2] In groupthink syndrome, group members tend to converge on specific ideas and focus on a certain course of action. Janis observes and identifies “antecedent conditions” as causes, “symptoms of groupthink” and “symptoms of defective decision making” as consequences in the case studies in his book.[3]

In this chapter of the book, Janis try to answer Is it possible to theorize the causes and consequences of the groupthink by describing the groupthink symptoms? question. Janis in this chapter argues that, when the decision makers shows most or all of the symptoms of groupthink (as well as antecedent conditions and symptoms of defective decision making) the members perform in efficiently and are probably to reflect the result of concurrence seeking that leads defective decision making.[4] In this paper I will first define the “symptoms of groupthink”, “antecedent conditions” and “symptoms of defective decision making” then describe the historical events effect as empirical evidences then conclude by the assessment of the theory.

[5]

Janis examines historical events that ended as fiascoes by seeking for the symptoms of groupthink within these events. The symptoms of groupthink is the independent variable, and the defective decisions is the dependent variable. If all or most of the symptoms of groupthink are seen in a case, mostly that event is a sample of groupthink syndrome.

Janis’ theorization effort of defective group decision process, and the gripping historical examples he examined in his book take attention of the political science scholars and readers. The explanation of the failure of the groups that governs the states in decision making helps to clarify how the states decide.

Symptoms of Groupthink, Antecedent Conditions and Defective Decision Making

Janis lists eight symptoms that show that concurrence seeking leads the group the wrong direction. The first two stem from overconfidence in the groups powers: invulnerability, inherent morality. The next two reflect the closed-mindedness: rationale, stereotypes. The finals are signs of strong conformity pressure within the group: self-censorship, unanimity, pressure, mindguards.[6]

There are three types of antecedent conditions: cohesion of the group, organizational structural features, and situational factors. For organizational structural features there are four examples: insulation of the group, lack of impartial leadership, lack of group norms, and homogeneity of group members. Situational factors include high stress from external threats and temporary low self-esteem induced by recent failures, excessive difficulties, or moral dilemmas.[7]

There are seven symptoms of defective decision-making: incomplete survey of alternatives, incomplete survey of objectives, failure to examine risks, failure to reappraise rejected alternatives, poor information search, selective bias in processing information, and failure to work out a contingency plan.[8]

Historical Case Studies

Janis presents four historical events from America: Nixon’s Watergate, Ford’s Mayaguez, Carter’s Iran Embassy and Reagan’s reduction of social security benefits.[9] The historical events are not only from America there two cases from Europe. French military high commands ignorance of German plans and British government’s appeasement attempts of Nazi Germany. [10]

In all the examples Janis there are symptoms of groupthink syndrome. They support the theory of groupthink, however in both the Mayaguez and Iran rescue decisions the result of the events is not related with the groupthink syndrome. There are groupthink symptoms in these cases, however if the results would not be so pathetic most probably they would not be on the list of groupthink fiascoes.

Assessment and Conclusion

Decisions made by a group of people that displays the symptoms of groupthink (as well as antecedent conditions and symptoms of defective decision making)  ends as defective decisions, because the members perform in efficiently and are probably to reflect the result of concurrence seeking.

The convincing part of the theory is the symptoms of groupthink are common in most of the failed decisions made by a group. The overconfidence, close-mindedness and conformity pressure ruins not only the group decisions but also individual decisions. These symptoms enhance the logical explanation of the theory.

The measurement of groupthink symptoms is the dark side of the theory. The most of the symptoms could not be measured easily, since they represent the private feelings or beliefs of group members. The only way to scale the symptoms is to ask to the members. Questionnaire could be used to learn about symptoms; however they may not be a proper way because of difficulty to differentiate the symptoms.

Another deficient is the theory only focuses on the initial part of the problem solving process. The examined historical events scrutinizes the process to the end of courses of actions and decision. Then it jumps to the results. The execution part is missing. It is not clear if it is a failure because of implementation that might have nothing to do with the group members.

---

[1] Irving L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982), 174.

[2] Ibid., 9.

[3] Ibid., 174.

[4] Ibid., 175.

[5] Janis, Groupthink, 174-77.

[6] Janis, Groupthink, 174-75.

[7] Ibid., 176-77.

[8] Ibid.,  175.

[9] Ibid., 178-186.

[10] Ibid., 187-193.