their doubts and keep silent. All of these behaviours led forecasters to appear unanimous
in their views on the coming recession.
With groupthink, individuals who hold a position that differs from that of the dom-
inant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and
beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a pos-
itive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption is necessary to
improve the effectiveness of the group’s decisions.
Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often where there is
a clear group identity, where members hold a positive image of their group, which they
want to protect, and where the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image.^40
So groupthink is less a way to suppress dissenters than a means for a group to protect
its positive image.
What can managers do to minimize groupthink?^41
- Encourage group leaders to play an impartial role.Leaders should actively seek
input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially
in the early stages of deliberation. - Appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate. This member’s role
is to overtly challenge the majority position and offer divergent perspectives. - Stimulate active discussion of diverse alternativesto encourage dissenting views
and more objective evaluations.
While considerable anecdotal evidence indicates the negative implications of group-
think in organizational settings, not much actual empirical work has been conducted in
organizations in this area.^42 In fact, researchers of groupthink have been criticized for sug-
gesting that its effect is uniformly negative^43 and for overestimating the link between the
decision-making process and its outcome.^44 A 1999 study of groupthink using 30 teams
from five large corporations suggests that elements of groupthink may affect decision
making differently. For instance, the illusion of invulnerability, belief in inherent group
morality, and the illusion of unanimity were positively associated with team perform-
ance.^45 The most recent research suggests that we should be aware of groupthink con-
ditions that lead to poor decisions, while realizing that not all groupthink symptoms
harm decision making.
Groupshift
Evidence suggests that there are differences between the decisions groups make and
the decisions that might be made by individual members within the group.^46 In some
cases, group decisions are more conservative than individual decisions. More often,
group decisions are riskier than individual decisions.^47 In either case, participants have
engaged in groupshift, a phenomenon in which the initial positions of individual
group members become exaggerated because of the interactions of the group.
What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads to a significant shift in
the positions of members toward a more extreme position toward the direction in
which they were already leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become
more cautious and more aggressive types assume more risk. The group discussion tends
to exaggerate the initial position of the group.
Groupshift can be viewed as a special case of groupthink. The group’s decision reflects
the dominant decision-making norm that develops during the group’s discussion.
Whether the shift in the group’s decision is toward greater caution or more risk depends
on the dominant pre-discussion norm.
The greater shift toward risk has generated several explanations for the phenome-
non.^48 It has been argued, for instance, that the discussion creates familiarity among the
Chapter 9Decision Making, Creativity, and Ethics 305groupshift A phenomenon in
which the initial positions of individ-
ual group members become exag-
gerated because of the interactions
of the group.