Presented by :

Abhijit (091202077)
Vasu (091202107)
Pranavi (091202075)
Gavin (091202086)
Manasa (091202067)
Coming together is a beginning
Keeping together is progress
Working together is success.
 A group is a collection of two or more people
who work with one another regularly to achieve
common goals.
 Formal group
 Informal group
 Groups can improve creativity.
 Groups can make better decisions.
 Groups can increase commitments to action.
 Groups help control their members.
 Groups help offset large organization size.
 When there is no clear expert in a particular
problem or task.

 When problem solving can be handled by a division of

labor and the sharing of information.

 When creativity and innovation are needed.

 “ A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group
members by others”.

Types :

 High status: People who control the outcome of group through their power are
tend to be perceived as high status. These high status members of the group are
often given more freedom to deviate from the norms than the other group
members do. They can resist conformity pressures than the lower status peers.

 Low status: Person having less ability to contribute to group goals with
relatively low power to yield over other.
According to status characteristics theory, status tends to be derived
from one of 3 sources:
 The power a person yields over others.

 A person’s ability to contribute to group goals.

 Individual’s personal characteristics.

 Degree to which group members are attracted to
each other and are motivated to stay in the group.

High Low
Determinants of Group Cohesiveness :
 “Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the
realistic appraisal of alternative course of action”.
 Type of group: Highly cohesive
 Structural contributors
 Group is insulated from outside influences
 Members mostly homogeneous (similar)
 No procedural norms for decision making
 Dominated by a respected/credible leader
 Situational contributors
 Group members under high stress
 Low group self-esteem
Key example:
 Pearl Harbor:
 Advance warning of an attack: Military commanders
received information about Japanese plans to attack
Pearl Harbor.
 Intelligence lost contact with aircraft carriers moving
toward Hawaii. Failed to send air reconnaissance which
could have given warning.
 Result: No alert was sounded until attack. Loss of 18
ships, 170 planes, 3700 lives.
 Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made.
 Members apply direct pressures on those who express doubts about shared
views or who question the alternative favored by the majority.
 Members who have doubts or differing points of view keep silent about
misgivings.
 There appears to be an illusion of unanimity.
 A change in decision risk between the group’s
decision and the individual decision that member
within the group would make; can be either toward
conservatism or greater risk.
“ THE DANGERS OF GROUPTHINK ”
1 ) What are some factors that led to groupthink in the cases
described here? What can teams do to attempt to prevent
groupthink from occurring?
a. Members mostly homogeneous (similar).
b. No procedural norms for decision making.
c. Dominated by a respected/credible leader.
d. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice.
e. Failure to re-evaluate previously rejected alternatives.
 Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows
each member to freely air objections and doubts.
 Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
 The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the
same problem.
 All effective alternatives should be examined.
 Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of
the group.
 The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should
be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
 At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate.
This should be a different person for each meeting.
2) How might differences in status among group members contribute
to groupthink? For example, how might lower-status members react
to a group’s decision? Are lower-status members more or less likely
to be dissenters? Why might higher-status group members be more
effective dissenters?
 “Interaction among group members is influenced by status. The high status
people tend to be more assertive, as they speak out more often, criticize,
command and interrupt others more often. So in a group when there is a
discussion on any matters high status people tend to argue and contribute their
points. Lower status people tend to be less active participants in group
discussions. This leads to group think where the lower status members in spite of
having a valid point tend to be silent and accept the decisions taken by the high
status members. Lower status members are less likely to be dissenters( as they
agree to the official decision. Lower status people do not fully utilize their
expertise and insights whereas a high status group member utilizes his ability and
thus they are more likely to be dissenters.( Express of disagreement with a widely
held view)”.
3) Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says that he encourages dissent.
Can such norms guard against the occurrence of groupthink?
As a manager, how would you try to cultivate norms that
prevent groupthink?
 Norms are acceptable standard of behaviour that are shared by the group
members. It tells members what they ought or ought not to do under such
circumstances. As we see in the first case since the group norms didn’t allow
them to express their dissent about the new process it intern let to the delay of
the whole process.
 Similarly in the second and the third case as members of the company and the
CEO rejected dissent, good ideas were put aside and because of this the
companies suffered heavily.
 Group norms must be created such that it encourages all the members of the
group to speak up. The members must be made to give their ideas right from
early stages of deliberation which overcomes groupthink.
 As a manager to prevent groupthink we set up some rules like
 Monitor group size.

 To encourage the group leaders to play an impartial role.

 Seek input from all members without expressing his own ideas.

 To appoint a group member to play the role of devil’s advocate

who opposes the idea of the group which will lead to divergent
perspective like danger, risk involved in a particular decision.
4) How might group characteristics such as size
and cohesiveness affect groupthink?
Since it is easier for fewer people to agree on goals and to co-
ordinate their work, smaller groups are more cohesive than larger
groups. Task cohesiveness may suffer, though, if the group lacks
enough members to perform its tasks well enough. Thus group
size has an effect on groupthink to some extent.
 Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink, because
their cohesiveness often correlates with unspoken understanding and the ability to
work together with minimal explanations. The closer group members are in outlook,
the less likely they are to raise questions that might break their cohesion.
Cohesion is considered as the most important antecedent to groupthink, but it
will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient
condition. Group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two
antecedent conditions is present:

 Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial
leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members'
social background and ideology.
 Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures,
excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.
Individually, we are one drop
Together, we are an ocean.
Thank you