Mitigating the Negative Decision Making Consequences of Groupthink and Other Social Pressures

Anthony R. Pratkanis University of California Marlene E. Turner San Jose State University

The discovery of groupthink

Within the period of a little over a year and a half, the Kennedy administration made one of the worst and one of the best foreign policy decision in U.S. history

Bay of Pigs Cuban Missile Crisis

Irving Janis wondered how the same group of people could produce such different decisions

A comparison of the group dynamics of both cases revealed the conditions of groupthink

Groupthink is extreme concurrence seeking in a group

Antecedent Conditions

Results in:

Cohesion Insulation of group Directive leadership High stress & low hope of finding solution Limited search and appraisal
Groupthink symptoms Defective decision making symptoms Poor decisions

Groupthink & the Bay of Pigs

Cohesion (Kennedy White House & esprit de corps) Directive leadership (JFK made known his intentions early in the process) High stress (first time on world stage) Insulation & limited search (due to sensitivity of matter little outside intervention)

Groupthink & the Bay of Pigs (cont.)

Invulnerable or unlimited confidence (get away with cover story for the invasion) Self-censorship (Schlesinger wrote critical memos to others but withheld criticism at the White House) Mindguards (Edward Murrow of USIA was prevented from voicing opposition) Outgroup stereotyping (press to blame for release of information) Limited search for conflicting information (no evidence that invasion would set off mass revolt in Cuba) No risk assessment No contingency plans made (except escape to distant mountain area if invasion failed)

Cuban Missile Crisis

As a result of the Bay of Pigs, JFK: Took responsibility for the decision personally Conducted a review of the decision to establish new procedures The new procedures included: Group members told to be critical and watchdogs Outside experts and fresh perspectives obtained Independent subgroups to create competing policies Leadless sessions (JFK not present to direct discussion)

Results of Cuban Missile Crisis

Despite operating under conditions of high cohesion and stress and threat, the group made an effective decision including

The creation of contingency plans Realistic risk appraisal Reversal of judgments and decisions Complete information search and appraisal

Other groupthink fiascos

Lack of preparedness at Pearl Harbor Watergate Challenger disaster City of Santa Cruzs earthquake preparedness Appeasement of Nazi Germany Decisions at Kent State Marketing the drug thalidomide Israels lack of preparedness for Oct. 1973 war WorldCom accounting fraud incident Columbia space shuttle tragedy

Research controversies

Case studies are open to alternative interpretations; not all agreed with Janiss interpretation of his cases Experiments the gold standard in science were unable to reproduce groupthink in controlled conditions These findings lead to a new theory of groupthink termed Social Identity Maintenance

Social Identity Maintenance theory of groupthink

Groupthink occurs when

The result:

The group has a positive social identity (NASA, Kennedy White House) as opposed to an esprit de corps That positive identity comes under threat
Group engages in identity protection (collective rationalization) as opposed to problem-solving Group accepts poor decision (simple solution or one from the leader) even when a better solution is known by some members.

Experimental test of SIM groupthink

Ad hoc groups were:

Given a social identity (cohesion) Put under threat

Completed a case in which discussion resulted in better solutions Results showed that the combined effects of cohesion and threat resulted in poor decisionmaking Results have been repeatedly replicated

Additional experimental tests

Groupthink was prevented in high cohesive, threat groups when: The group was given an excuse for poor performance (provides a face-saving mechanism for maintaining positive identity) The group was given a set of discussion guidelines to focus process and serve as a coping mechanism for the threat: Recognize all suggests and continued solicitation of solutions Protect members from criticism Keep discussion problem-centered List all solutions before evaluating them

Additional group dynamics that may lead to poor decision making

Group polarization (risky shift) Social loafing Hidden, unshared information

Politicothink
Faade of conflict and discussion Conflict avoidance

Social Influence Pressures

Landscaping of the decision

Conformity and bandwagon Obedience to authority Granfallooning Escalating commitment to a failing course of action (rationalization trap) Plus others

Agenda setting, decision criteria, limiting choices, decoys & phantoms, problem framing, comparison points, information control, and labeling

Mitigating the Effects of Groupthink

Goals: Decision quality Decision acceptance (by group and constituents) General strategies: Increase constructive conflict (debate and discussion about the issues) Decrease emotional conflict (desire to maintain social identity) Conduct a social influence analysis to determine sources of influence that may serve to bias decision making Results: Teams that focus on facts, consider multiple alternatives, create common goals, use humor, balance power, and seek consensus based on qualifications perform better than their counterparts.

Implementation of interventions can be difficult during groupthink

Any intervention can be seen as a threat and therefore may induce pressures to maintain social identity Interventions work best when:

implemented before or early in the process the intervention becomes normative (normal) and linked to the identity

Decrease emotional conflict

Provide a face saving mechanism for poor performance

For example, the task is tough, it is to your credit to succeed While an effective tactic for preventing groupthink, it can be difficult to implement:

High stakes decisions imply consequences Excuse can take the form of scapegoating

Decrease emotional conflict

The risk technique

The discussion is structured so that

Group members are encouraged to express risks and fears about a decision (including implications for group identity) After listing the risks, the group turns to a discussion of how to mitigate those risks.

Technique is useful for dealing with underlying emotional conflict and turning it into constructive conflict

Decrease emotional conflict

Multiple role playing procedures

Group members assume the roles and perspectives of

Key constituencies Other group members Reduces links to social identity Facilitates confrontation of threats and rationales Provides additional perspectives and potential information

The exploration of other perspectives

Decrease emotional conflict

Link a social identity to critical analysis

Examples:

Railroader identity of safety Toyota plant and defects Speak truth to power

Technique makes critical analysis second nature and provides for a positive identity

Decrease emotional conflict

Identity Metamorphosis

Destroy an old identity and replace it with a new identity (along with the resources to maintain that identity) Andy Grove, the Great America Ferris wheel, and exiting the DRAM market and entering the PC chip market

Increase constructive conflict

Structured discussion principles (train leaders and group members in effective discussion principles)

Guidelines include:

Recognize all suggests and continued solicitation of solutions Protect members from criticism Keep discussion problem-centered List all solutions before evaluating them

Getting to yes approach adapted to group decisions

Increase constructive conflict

Establish procedures for protecting minority opinion

Groups often generate high quality solutions but dont adopt them Attention to minority opinion enhances cognition processing resulting in better decisions Leader solicits and respects minority views Decision process solicits minority views

Implementation approaches

A hallmark of democratic process

Increase constructive conflict

Use directed decision aids to structure group process

Developmental discussion (leader breaks problem into steps and explores each systematically via question-asking) Two column method (list and consider the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative) Second solution (require group to produce a second solution to the problem after the first)

Increase constructive conflict

Debias technique of considering multiple hypotheses and alternatives

method of multiple working hypotheses or bring up all rational explanations, perspectives, and alternatives for consideration as a means of avoiding premature closure on a suggested option. Consider the opposite

Social influence analysis

Analyze the social situation of the decision maker in terms of the social influence pressures and tactics. Suggest specific interventions based on that analysis to reduce the effects of potentially biasing influence sources. Useful for countering influence such as landscaping, granfallooning, bandwagon, etc. SIA has been used to suggest interventions in fraud crimes, public diplomacy, and consumer protection, among others.

Scientist: Think that you might be wrong

Instill in each decision maker the norms of the scientist:

Ask: What else can it be? Ask: So what? (If a given hypothesis is true, then how should the world look?) Go find out if the so whats are true, looking for cases when they are not.