What Is Displacement Linguistics? - Quora ~ Investopedia

goal displacement.. Although the primary task of the meeting may be to solve a particular problem, other considerations may rise. 15. Goal displacement, satisficing, and groupthink are ____. disadvantages of group decision making.goal displacement, satisficing, and groupthink are A. advantages of group decision making B. disadvantage of individual decision making C. disadvantage of group decision making D. problems with synergy E. a normal aspect of all groups."Groupthink occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions that are spurred by the urge to conform or the discouragement of dissent." When a team is operating in groupthink mode, it'll shut down debate or alternative viewpoints.This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 10 pages. analyticalGoal displacement, satisficing, and groupthink are ____.disadvantages of group decision makingWith the community interested in eating healthy, Sue Ellen, a restaurant owner, is considering adding more vegetarian dishes to her menu.chapter individual group decision making two kinds of decision making: rational and nonrational decision choice made from among available alternatives decision.

Management Test 2 Flashcards | Quizlet

Goal displacement can happen because of many reasons and at many levels, with the only objective of ensuring the growth and prosperity of the company. For example an organization which was initially intended to fight polio would displace its goals once the vaccine for polio is invented.Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. Stereotyped beliefs about other groups can contribute to this biased sense of rightness. It is important to note that while groupthink and conformity are similar and related concepts, there are important...Question: What is groupthink and how can a team prevent it? Groupthink is a behavioral pattern exhibited by team members in an attempt to reduce conflict and reach consensus without critically analyzing an issue.This type of thinking is called "satisficing," or doing the best you can with what you have. Gerd Gigerenzer helps explain Bounded Rationality in The ideas of "bounded rationality and satisficing," are now widely accepted, and its insights are fueling research throughout the social sciences.

What Are the Problems With Groupthink? +How to Avoid Them

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different...Click here to get an answer to your question Goal displacement, satisficing, and groupthink are ____. disadvantages of individual decision making a normal…Group Polarization; When you have a bunch of people with similar ideas talk and after everyone talks they all have stronger views than before. Groupthink is when everyone usually agree with one another because they want to avoid going agains the norm or disrupting the harmony of the group.goal displacement. secondary placement. Goal displacement, satisficing, and groupthink are ____.A few people dominate or intimidate Groupthink Satisficing Goal displacement. occurs when group members strive to agree for the sake of unanimity and thus avoid accurately assessing the decision situation.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs inside a gaggle of other folks through which the will for solidarity or conformity within the group leads to an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the need for cohesiveness, in a group would possibly produce a bent amongst its participants to agree in any respect costs.[1] This reasons the crowd to attenuate battle and succeed in a consensus decision without crucial evaluation.[2][3]

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology, however has an extensive achieve and influences literature in the fields of communication research, political science, control, and organizational theory,[4] as well as necessary aspects of deviant spiritual cult behaviour.[5][6]

Groupthink is occasionally mentioned to happen (extra widely) within herbal teams throughout the community, for instance to provide an explanation for the lifelong different mindsets of the ones with differing political opinions (such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" within the U.S. political context [7]) or the purported benefits of staff work vs. paintings conducted in solitude.[8] However, this conformity of viewpoints inside of a bunch does no longer principally contain deliberate organization decision-making, and could be better defined by the collective confirmation bias of the person members of the crowd.

The time period was coined in 1952 via William H. Whyte Jr.[9] Most of the preliminary research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a analysis psychologist from Yale University.[10] Janis revealed an influential guide in 1972, which was once revised in 1982.[11][12] Janis used the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed invasion of Castro's Cuba in 1961) and the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as his two top case studies. Later studies have evaluated and reformulated his groupthink type.[13][14]

Groupthink calls for people to steer clear of raising controversial problems or choice answers, and there is loss of person creativity, specialty and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated walk in the park that the fitting resolution has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its personal talents in decision-making and considerably underrates the talents of its warring parties (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions in opposition to the "outgroup". Members of a bunch can frequently feel peer drive to "go along with the crowd" in concern of rocking the boat or of what them speaking up will do to the entire to how their teammates understand them. Group interactions have a tendency to choose transparent and harmonious agreements and it may be a purpose for concern when little to no new inventions or arguments for better policies, results and constructions are known as to question. (McLeod). Groupthink can ceaselessly be known as a group of "sure men" as a result of organization actions and organization projects generally make it extremely easy to move on not offering positive critiques.

Some strategies that have been used to counteract group assume up to now is settling on teams from more diverse backgrounds, and even mixing men and women for teams (Kamalnath). Groupthink can also be thought to be by way of many to be a detriment to firms, organizations and in any paintings eventualities. Most positions that are senior stage need people to be independent in their pondering. There is a good correlation discovered between exceptional executives and decisiveness (Kelman). Groupthink additionally prohibits a company from shifting ahead and innovating if no one ever speaks up and says something could be executed otherwise.

Antecedent factors equivalent to group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., group panic) play into the possibility of whether or not groupthink will affect the decision-making procedure.

History

From "Groupthink" by means of William H. Whyte Jr. in Fortune mag, March 1952

William H. Whyte Jr. derived the term from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, and popularized it in 1952 in Fortune mag:

Groupthink being a coinage – and, admittedly, a loaded one – a working definition is in order. We are not speaking about mere instinctive conformity – it's, finally, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are speaking about is a rationalized conformity – an open, articulate philosophy which holds that organization values are no longer only expedient however appropriate and excellent as nicely.[15][16][17]

Irving Janis pioneered the initial research at the groupthink idea. He does no longer cite Whyte, however makes use of the term by way of analogy with "doublethink" and identical terms that were part of the newspeak vocabulary within the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by way of George Orwell. He to start with defined groupthink as follows:

I take advantage of the time period groupthink as a quick and easy strategy to seek advice from the mode of considering that individuals engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it has a tendency to override real looking appraisal of other courses of motion. Groupthink is a term of the similar order because the phrases in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell utilized in his dismaying global of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly this kind of connotation is intended, for the reason that time period refers to a deterioration in psychological efficiency, truth checking out and moral judgments as a result of organization pressures.[10]:43

He went on to jot down:

The major theory of groupthink, which I be offering in the spirit of Parkinson's Law, is this: "The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against outgroups".[10]:44

Janis set the root for the be taught of groupthink beginning together with his research in the American Soldier Project the place he studied the impact of maximum pressure on organization cohesiveness. After this study he remained interested within the ways by which other folks make choices below external threats. This passion led Janis to check plenty of "disasters" in American overseas coverage, comparable to failure to wait for the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor (1941); the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco (1961); and the prosecution of the Vietnam War (1964–67) through President Lyndon Johnson. He concluded that in each and every of those cases, the selections occurred largely as a result of groupthink, which averted contradictory views from being expressed and due to this fact evaluated.

After the publication of Janis' guide Victims of Groupthink in 1972,[11] and a revised edition with the name Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes in 1982,[12] the concept that of groupthink used to be used to give an explanation for many other erroneous decisions in historical past. These events incorporated Nazi Germany's decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, the Watergate scandal and others. Despite the popularity of the concept that of groupthink, fewer than two dozen studies addressed the phenomenon itself following the publication of Victims of Groupthink, between the years 1972 and 1998.[4]:107 This used to be unexpected bearing in mind what number of fields of pursuits it spans, which include political science, communications, organizational research, social psychology, management, strategy, counseling, and advertising and marketing. One can most likely provide an explanation for this lack of follow-up in that organization analysis is hard to habits, groupthink has many unbiased and dependent variables, and it is unclear "how to translate [groupthink's] theoretical concepts into observable and quantitative constructs".[4]:107–108

Nevertheless, outside analysis psychology and sociology, wider tradition has come to hit upon groupthink in observable situations, as an example:

" [...] critics of Twitter point to the predominance of the hive mind in such social media, the kind of groupthink that submerges independent thinking in favor of conformity to the group, the collective"[18]"[...] leaders often have beliefs which are very far from matching reality and which can become more extreme as they are encouraged by their followers. The predilection of many cult leaders for abstract, ambiguous, and therefore unchallengeable ideas can further reduce the likelihood of reality testing, while the intense milieu control exerted by cults over their members means that most of the reality available for testing is supplied by the group environment. This is seen in the phenomenon of 'groupthink', alleged to have occurred, notoriously, during the Bay of Pigs fiasco."[19]"Groupthink by Compulsion [...] [G]roupthink at least implies voluntarism. When this fails, the organization is not above outright intimidation. [...] In [a nationwide telecommunications company], refusal by the new hires to cheer on command incurred consequences not unlike the indoctrination and brainwashing techniques associated with a Soviet-era gulag."[20]

Symptoms

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised 8 signs indicative of groupthink:[21]

Type I: Overestimations of the crowd — its power and morality

Illusions of invulnerability creating over the top optimism and encouraging possibility taking. Unquestioned belief within the morality of the group, inflicting participants to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that may challenge the group's assumptions. Stereotyping those who are antagonistic to the group as vulnerable, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures towards uniformity

Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the plain organization consensus. Illusions of unanimity amongst organization participants, silence is viewed as settlement. Direct pressure to adapt put on any member who questions the gang, couched in terms of "disloyalty" Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the crowd from dissenting data.

Causes

Janis prescribed three antecedent stipulations to groupthink.[11]:9

High group cohesiveness. Janis emphasised that cohesiveness is the principle issue that leads to groupthink. Groups that lack cohesiveness can of course make bad choices, however they do not experience groupthink. In a cohesive group, contributors keep away from speaking out against decisions, avoid arguing with others, and work in opposition to keeping up friendly relationships within the group. If cohesiveness gets to this sort of prime stage the place there are not disagreements between individuals, then the group is ripe for groupthink. deindividuation: organization cohesiveness becomes more important than particular person freedom of expression Structural faults. Cohesion is important for groupthink, but it turns into even much more likely when the group is organized in ways that disrupt the communique of information, and when the group engages in carelessness while making choices. insulation of the group: can advertise the development of unique, faulty perspectives on issues the gang is dealing with, and can then lead to inaccurate answers to the issue. lack of unbiased management: leaders can utterly keep watch over the gang discussion, by way of planning what is going to be mentioned, handiest allowing sure questions to be asked, and soliciting for opinions of best sure folks within the group. Closed genre management is when leaders announce their evaluations at the issue earlier than the group discusses the issue together. Open style leadership is when leaders withhold their opinion till a later time in the discussion. Groups with a closed style leader had been discovered to be extra biased in their judgments, especially when members had a top stage for simple task. loss of norms requiring methodological procedures homogeneity of participants' social backgrounds and ideology Situational context: extremely hectic exterior threats: High stake decisions can create stress and anxiety, and group participants then would possibly deal with the decisional stress in irrational tactics. Group participants would possibly rationalize their resolution via exaggerating the certain penalties and minimizing the possible unfavourable consequences. In try to decrease the hectic situation, the group will make a handy guide a rough resolution with little to no dialogue or confrontation about the decision. Studies have shown that groups beneath prime stress are much more likely to make mistakes, lose focal point of without equal goal, and use procedures that individuals know have now not been high-quality prior to now. contemporary failures: can result in low vainness, leading to agreement with the group for concern of being observed as flawed excessive difficulties in decision-making tasks time pressures: organization individuals are extra all for efficiency and quick effects, as an alternative of quality and accuracy. Additionally, time pressures can lead to organization individuals overlooking vital information regarding the issue of debate. ethical dilemmas

Although it is possible for a scenario to contain all three of those elements, all three are not all the time present even when groupthink is going on. Janis considered a top degree of cohesiveness to be crucial antecedent to producing groupthink and always present when groupthink used to be happening; then again, he believed prime cohesiveness would not at all times produce groupthink. A very cohesive organization abides to all group norms; whether or not or no longer groupthink arises relies on what the crowd norms are. If the crowd encourages individual dissent and choice strategies to challenge solving, it's most probably that groupthink will probably be avoided even in a extremely cohesive group. This means that top brotherly love will lead to groupthink only if one or either one of the other antecedents is present, situational context being reasonably more likely than structural faults to supply groupthink.[22]

Prevention

As noticed by way of Aldag and Fuller (1993), the groupthink phenomenon seems to relaxation on a set of unstated and generally restrictive assumptions:[23]

The function of organization issue solving is principally to toughen decision high quality Group subject solving is considered a rational procedure. Benefits of organization issue solving: variety of views more information about possible possible choices higher resolution reliability dampening of biases social presence results Groupthink prevents those advantages because of structural faults and provocative situational context Groupthink prevention strategies will produce higher choices An phantasm of well-being is presumed to be inherently dysfunctional. Group pressures against consensus lead to concurrence-seeking inclinations.

It has been thought that groups with the strong ability to paintings together will be able to remedy dilemmas in a quicker and extra environment friendly fashion than a person. Groups have a greater quantity of assets which lead them in an effort to store and retrieve information more readily and come up with extra choice solutions to an issue. There used to be a known problem to organization subject solving in that it takes teams extra time to come to a decision and calls for that folks make compromises with every other. However, it was once not until the research of Janis appeared that any one really thought to be that a highly cohesive group may just impair the gang's talent to generate quality choices. Tight-knit groups may appear to make selections higher as a result of they are able to come to a consensus briefly and at a low energy cost; on the other hand, over the years this technique of decision-making would possibly lower the individuals' skill to assume significantly. It is, therefore, regarded as by means of many to be vital to combat the effects of groupthink.[22]

According to Janis, decision-making teams are no longer necessarily destined to groupthink. He devised ways of forestalling groupthink:[11]:209–215

Leaders must assign each and every member the role of "critical evaluator". This allows every member to freely air objections and doubts. Leaders should now not categorical an opinion when assigning a job to a gaggle. Leaders will have to absent themselves from lots of the organization meetings to keep away from excessively influencing the outcome. The organization will have to arrange a number of impartial teams, running at the same situation. All fine possible choices must be examined. Each member must speak about the group's ideas with depended on other folks outside of the crowd. The group will have to invite out of doors professionals into meetings. Group individuals should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside mavens. At least one group member must be assigned the function of devil's suggest. This must be a unique person for each and every meeting.

The satan's suggest in a group would possibly provide questions and insight which contradict the majority group as a way to steer clear of groupthink selections.[24] A study via Hartwig [25] insists that the satan's advocacy method is very helpful for organization problem-solving. It permits for warfare to be used in some way this is most-effective for locating the most productive answer so that contributors will not have to go back and find a different solution if the primary one fails. Hartwig also means that the devil's advocacy technique be incorporated with different organization decision-making fashions such because the functional principle to find and evaluation alternative solutions. The primary thought of the devil's advocacy technique is that relatively structured struggle can be facilitated not to best reduce groupthink, but to additionally solve issues.

A identical time period to groupthink is the Abilene paradox, some other phenomenon that is damaging when operating in groups. When organizations fall into the Abilene paradox, they take actions in contradiction to what their perceived targets could also be and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve.[26] Failure to keep in touch wants or ideals could cause the Abilene paradox.

As explained within the Abilene paradox, the Watergate scandal is an instance of this. Before the scandal had happened, a gathering took place where they discussed the issue. One of Nixon's campaign aides was undecided if he will have to discuss up and give his enter. If he would have disagreed with the crowd's decision, it can be a chance that the scandal would have been have shyed away from.

Other examples of ways groupthink might be avoided or prevented:

After the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, President John F. Kennedy sought to steer clear of groupthink throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis the usage of "vigilant appraisal".[12]:148–153 During conferences, he invited out of doors mavens to share their viewpoints, and allowed organization members to query them sparsely. He additionally inspired organization contributors to discuss conceivable solutions with relied on participants within their separate departments, and he even divided the crowd up into more than a few sub-groups, to partially ruin the group cohesion. Kennedy was once intentionally absent from the conferences, so to avoid urgent his own opinion.

Cass Sunstein reports that introverts can every so often be silent in conferences with extroverts; he recommends explicitly requesting every individual's opinion, both all the way through the assembly or afterwards in one-on-one sessions. Sunstein issues to studies showing teams with a top level of inner socialization and satisfied communicate are more prone to bad investment choices due to groupthink, when put next with groups of traders who are relative strangers and extra willing to be argumentative. To keep away from organization polarization, where dialogue with like-minded people drives an result additional to an excessive than any of the individuals favored earlier than the discussion, he recommends growing heterogeneous groups which contain other folks with other issues of view. Sunstein additionally points out that individuals arguing a side they do not sincerely imagine (in the role of satan's recommend) have a tendency to be a lot much less positive than a honest argument. This can also be completed through dissenting people, or a group like a Red Team this is expected to pursue another strategy or goal "for real".[27]

Empirical findings and meta-analysis

Testing groupthink in a laboratory is difficult because synthetic settings take away groups from actual social scenarios, which in the end changes the variables conducive or inhibitive to groupthink.[28] Because of its subjective nature, researchers have struggled to measure groupthink as a complete phenomenon, as an alternative continuously opting to measure its specific components. These elements vary from causal to effectual and center of attention on group and situational sides.[29][30]

Park (1990) found that "only 16 empirical studies have been published on groupthink", and concluded that they "resulted in only partial support of his [Janis's] hypotheses".[31]:230 Park concludes, "despite Janis' claim that group cohesiveness is the major necessary antecedent factor, no research has shown a significant main effect of cohesiveness on groupthink."[31]:230 Park also concludes that research on the interaction between organization cohesiveness and leadership style does now not reinforce Janis' claim that cohesion and management style interact to produce groupthink signs.[31] Park items a abstract of the results of the studies analyzed. According to Park, a learn by Huseman and Drive (1979) signifies groupthink happens in each small and large decision-making groups inside of companies.[31] This results partly from group isolation inside the business. Manz and Sims (1982) carried out a study showing that self sustaining paintings teams are vulnerable to groupthink signs in the same method as selections making teams within companies.[31][32] Fodor and Smith (1982) produced a be taught revealing that group leaders with top power motivation create atmospheres extra susceptible to groupthink.[31][33] Leaders with top energy motivation possess characteristics very similar to leaders with a "closed" management style—an unwillingness to recognize dissenting opinion. The same learn indicates that level of organization cohesiveness is insignificant in predicting groupthink incidence. Park summarizes a be taught performed through Callaway, Marriott, and Esser (1985) wherein groups with highly dominant members "made higher quality decisions, exhibited lowered state of anxiety, took more time to reach a decision, and made more statements of disagreement/agreement".[31]:232[34] Overall, groups with highly dominant individuals expressed traits inhibitory to groupthink. If extremely dominant individuals are thought to be an identical to leaders with top power motivation, the result of Callaway, Marriott, and Esser contradict the results of Fodor and Smith. A be taught through Leana (1985) signifies the interaction between level of organization concord and leadership style is completely insignificant in predicting groupthink.[31][35] This discovering refutes Janis' claim that the factors of cohesion and management style engage to produce groupthink. Park summarizes a be taught through McCauley (1989) wherein structural stipulations of the gang were discovered to are expecting groupthink while situational conditions did not.[14][31] The structural prerequisites incorporated organization insulation, organization homogeneity, and promotional leadership. The situational conditions integrated group cohesion. These findings refute Janis' declare about group cohesiveness predicting groupthink.

Overall, studies on groupthink have in large part centered at the components (antecedents) that predict groupthink. Groupthink occurrence is ceaselessly measured by means of number of concepts/answers generated inside of a bunch, however there is no uniform, concrete same old through which researchers can objectively conclude groupthink happens.[28] The studies of groupthink and groupthink antecedents disclose a combined body of results. Some studies point out group cohesion and management genre to be powerfully predictive of groupthink, whilst other research indicate the insignificance of those elements. Group homogeneity and group insulation are generally supported as factors predictive of groupthink.

Case research

Politics and army

Groupthink may have a strong cling on political decisions and military operations, which would possibly lead to enormous wastage of human and subject material resources. Highly qualified and skilled politicians and army commanders infrequently make very poor choices when in a suboptimal organization setting. Scholars reminiscent of Janis and Raven attribute political and military fiascoes, such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal, to the impact of groupthink.[12][36] More lately, Dina Badie argued that groupthink was once largely chargeable for the shift in the U.S. administration's view on Saddam Hussein that at last ended in the 2003 invasion of Iraq by way of the United States.[37] After the September Eleven attacks, "stress, promotional leadership, and intergroup conflict" have been all factors that gave rise to the occurrence of groupthink.[37]:283 Political case studies of groupthink serve as an instance the impact that the prevalence of groupthink could have in these days's political scene.

Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis

The United States Bay of Pigs Invasion of April 1961 was the main case be taught that Janis used to formulate his concept of groupthink.[10] The invasion plan was initiated by means of the Eisenhower management, but when the Kennedy administration took over, it "uncritically accepted" the plan of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[10]:44 When some other folks, corresponding to Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Senator J. William Fulbright, tried to provide their objections to the plan, the Kennedy workforce as a whole omitted these objections and kept believing within the morality of their plan.[10]:46 Eventually Schlesinger minimized his personal doubts, acting self-censorship.[10]:74 The Kennedy staff stereotyped Fidel Castro and the Cubans via failing to query the CIA about its many false assumptions, including the ineffectiveness of Castro's air force, the weak point of Castro's army, and the lack of Castro to quell inside uprisings.[10]:46

Janis argued the fiasco that ensued may have been avoided if the Kennedy management had followed the how one can combating groupthink adopted all through the Cuban Missile Crisis, which came about just one yr later in October 1962. In the latter disaster, necessarily the same political leaders have been all in favour of decision-making, however this time they realized from their earlier mistake of seriously under-rating their opponents.[10]:76

Pearl Harbor

The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, is a prime instance of groupthink. Quite a few elements corresponding to shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the loss of precaution taken through U.S. Navy officials based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese messages and they came upon that Japan used to be arming itself for an offensive assault somewhere within the Pacific Ocean. Washington took action via caution officers stationed at Pearl Harbor, however their warning was once no longer taken significantly. They assumed that the Empire of Japan used to be taking measures in the tournament that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories had been usurped.

The U.S. Navy and Army in Pearl Harbor additionally shared rationalizations about why an assault used to be unlikely. Some of them incorporated:[12]:83,85

"The Japanese would never dare attempt a full-scale surprise assault against Hawaii because they would realize that it would precipitate an all-out war, which the United States would surely win." "The Pacific Fleet concentrated at Pearl Harbor was a major deterrent against air or naval attack." "Even if the Japanese were foolhardy to send their carriers to attack us [the United States], we could certainly detect and destroy them in plenty of time." "No warships anchored in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor could ever be sunk by torpedo bombs launched from enemy aircraft."Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

On January 28, 1986, the USA launched the Space Shuttle Challenger. This was to be monumental for NASA, as a highschool instructor was once some of the group and was to be the primary American civilian in space. NASA's engineering and launch groups depend on group work, and with a purpose to release the go back and forth the team participants should confirm each and every gadget is functioning nominally. The Thiokol engineers who designed and built the Challenger's rocket boosters warned that the temperature for the day of the launch may lead to overall failure of the cars and deaths of the workforce.[38] The launch led to crisis and grounded space go back and forth flights for nearly three years.

The Challenger case used to be subject to a extra quantitatively orientated check of Janis's groupthink fashion carried out by Esser and Lindoerfer, who found clear signs of certain antecedents to groupthink in the important selections concerning the release of the commute.[39] The day of the release used to be rushed for exposure reasons. NASA wanted to captivate and hold the attention of America. Having civilian teacher Christa McAuliffe on board to broadcast a reside lesson, and the possible point out by way of president Ronald Reagan in the State of the Union address, have been opportunities NASA deemed important to expanding pastime in its potential civilian area flight program. The schedule NASA got down to meet was once, however, self-imposed. It seemed fantastic to many who a company with a perceived history of a hit management would have locked itself into a agenda it had no chance of meeting.[40]

Corporate international

In the company international, ineffective and suboptimal group decision-making can negatively affect the health of an organization and reason a large amount of monetary loss.

Swissair

Aaron Hermann and Hussain Rammal illustrate the detrimental function of groupthink within the collapse of Swissair, a Swiss airline corporate that used to be thought to be so financially stable that it earned the name the "Flying Bank".[41] The authors argue that, among different components, Swissair carried two signs of groupthink: the conclusion that the gang is invulnerable and the conclusion within the morality of the crowd.[41]:1056 In addition, earlier than the fiasco, the dimensions of the corporate board used to be reduced, subsequently getting rid of business experience. This can have further larger the chance of groupthink.[41]:1055 With the board members lacking expertise in the field and having relatively similar background, norms, and values, the force to evolve may have grow to be more distinguished.[41]:1057 This phenomenon is known as group homogeneity, which is an antecedent to groupthink. Together, these stipulations may have contributed to the poor decision-making procedure that at last resulted in Swissair's cave in.

Marks & Spencer and British Airways

Another instance of groupthink from the corporate global is illustrated in the United Kingdom-based companies Marks & Spencer and British Airways. The destructive impact of groupthink came about right through the 1990s as each firms released globalization expansion methods. Researcher Jack Eaton's content material analysis of media press releases revealed that all 8 symptoms of groupthink had been present during this era. The maximum main symptom of groupthink was the illusion of invulnerability as both corporations underestimated potential failure because of years of profitability and good fortune all the way through challenging markets. Up until the result of groupthink erupted they have been considered blue chips and darlings of the London Stock Exchange. During 1998–1999 the price of Marks & Spencer stocks fell from 590 to not up to 300 and that of British Airways from 740 to 300. Both companies had already featured prominently in the UK press and media for extra positive causes to do with national pride in their undoubted sector-wide efficiency.[42]

Sports

Recent literature of groupthink attempts to study the appliance of this concept beyond the framework of industrial and politics. One particularly related and common arena by which groupthink is rarely studied is sports activities. The loss of literature on this area brought about Charles Koerber and Christopher Neck to begin a case-study investigation that examined the effect of groupthink at the decision of the Major League Umpires Association (MLUA) to level a mass resignation in 1999. The resolution was a failed attempt to gain a more potent negotiating stance against Major League Baseball.[43]:21 Koerber and Neck counsel that 3 groupthink symptoms can also be discovered in the decision-making strategy of the MLUA. First, the umpires hyped up the facility that that they had over the baseball league and the energy of their organization's unravel. The union additionally exhibited a point of closed-mindedness with the perception that MLB is the enemy. Lastly, there used to be the presence of self-censorship; some umpires who disagreed with the call to resign didn't voice their dissent.[43]:25 These factors, at the side of other decision-making defects, resulted in a choice that was once suboptimal and useless.

Recent tendencies

Ubiquity model

Researcher Robert Baron (2005) contends that the relationship between positive antecedents which Janis believed vital has no longer been demonstrated by way of the present collective body of research on groupthink. He believes that Janis' antecedents for groupthink are improper, and argues that no longer simplest are they "not necessary to provoke the symptoms of groupthink, but that they often will not even amplify such symptoms".[44] As an alternative choice to Janis' style, Baron proposed a ubiquity fashion of groupthink. This style provides a revised set of antecedents for groupthink, including social identity, salient norms, and low self-efficacy.

General group problem-solving (GGPS) type

Aldag and Fuller (1993) argue that the groupthink idea used to be in accordance with a "small and relatively restricted sample" that changed into too broadly generalized.[23] Furthermore, the concept is simply too rigidly staged and deterministic. Empirical toughen for it has additionally now not been consistent. The authors examine groupthink style to findings presented by Maslow and Piaget; they argue that, in each case, the model incites great passion and additional analysis that, due to this fact, invalidate the original idea. Aldag and Fuller thus suggest a new style called the overall group problem-solving (GGPS) style, which integrates new findings from groupthink literature and alters facets of groupthink itself.[23]:534 The number one difference between the GGPS type and groupthink is that the former is more price neutral and extra political.[23]:544

Reexamination

Other scholars attempt to assess the benefit of groupthink by means of reexamining case research that Janis had at the beginning used to buttress his type. Roderick Kramer (1998) believed that, because scholars nowadays have a more subtle set of concepts about the normal decision-making procedure and as a result of new and relevant information about the fiascos have surfaced over the years, a reexamination of the case studies is appropriate and important.[45] He argues that new proof does no longer reinforce Janis' view that groupthink was in large part accountable for President Kennedy's and President Johnson's selections within the Bay of Pigs Invasion and U.S. escalated army involvement within the Vietnam War, respectively. Both presidents sought the recommendation of mavens out of doors in their political groups more than Janis instructed.[45]:241 Kramer also argues that the presidents have been the final decision-makers of the fiascos; whilst figuring out which plan of action to take, they relied extra closely on their very own construals of the situations than on any group-consenting resolution presented to them.[45]:241 Kramer concludes that Janis' explanation of the 2 military problems is wrong and that groupthink has much less influence on group decision-making than is popularly believed to be.

Groupthink, whilst it is considered avoided, does have some certain results. A case learn by way of Choi and Kim [46] displays that with organization identification, group efficiency has a destructive correlation with faulty resolution making. This be taught additionally showed that the connection between groupthink and defective resolution making was insignificant. These findings mean that during the fitting cases, groupthink does no longer all the time have unfavourable results. It additionally questions the original idea of groupthink.

Reformulation

Whyte (1998) means that collective efficacy plays a big function in groupthink as it reasons groups to develop into less vigilant and to desire dangers, two explicit elements that symbolize teams suffering from groupthink.[47] McCauley recasts sides of groupthink's preconditions via arguing that the extent of beauty of group participants is essentially the most outstanding consider inflicting poor decision-making.[48] The results of Turner's and Pratkanis' (1991) be taught on social id maintenance standpoint and groupthink conclude that groupthink can also be viewed as a "collective effort directed at warding off potentially negative views of the group".[6] Together, the contributions of those scholars have caused new understandings of groupthink that lend a hand reformulate Janis' authentic model.

Sociocognitive concept

According to a new principle most of the basic characteristics of groupthink – e.g., sturdy cohesion, indulgent environment, and unique ethos – are the results of a special more or less mnemonic encoding (Tsoukalas, 2007). Members of tightly knit teams generally tend to represent significant facets of their community as episodic recollections and this has a predictable influence on their organization behavior and collective ideology.[49]

See additionally

Amity-enmity complex Asch conformity experiments Bandwagon impact Collective intelligence Collective narcissism Democratic centralism Dunning–Kruger impact Echo chamber (media) Emotional contagion False consensus effect Filter bubble Group flow Group-serving bias Groupshift Herd behaviour Homophily In-group favoritism Individualism Mass psychology Moral Man and Immoral Society No soap radio Mob rule Organizational dissent Political midlife crisis Positive psychology (relevantly, its criticism) Realistic warfare principle Risky shift Scapegoating Social comparability theory Spiral of silence System justification Tone policing Three males make a tiger Tuckman's stages of group construction Vendor lock-in Wishful considering Woozle impact Team error DiversityCultural range Multiculturalism

References

^ .mw-parser-output cite.citationfont-style:inherit.mw-parser-output .citation qquotes:"\"""\"""'""'".mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em heart/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration abackground:linear-gradient(clear,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")appropriate 0.1em middle/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription abackground:linear-gradient(clear,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registrationcolor:#555.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration spanborder-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:lend a hand.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon abackground:linear-gradient(clear,clear),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat.mw-parser-output code.cs1-codecolor:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-errorshow:none;font-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-errorfont-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-maintshow:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em.mw-parser-output .cs1-formatfont-size:95%.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-leftpadding-left:0.2em.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-rightpadding-right:0.2em.mw-parser-output .quotation .mw-selflinkfont-weight:inherit"Leadership Glossary: Essential Terms for the 21st Century". Choice Reviews Online. 52 (11): 52–5672-52-5672. 2015-06-18. doi:10.5860/choice.190440. ISSN 0009-4978. ^ "Organisational behaviour - Docsity". www.docsity.com. Retrieved 2020-05-27. ^ "Groupthink". Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved 2020-05-27. ^ a b c Turner, M. E.; Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). "Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory" (PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2–3): 105–115. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2756. PMID 9705798. ^ Wexler, Mark N. (1995). "Expanding the groupthink explanation to the study of contemporary cults". Cultic Studies Journal. 12 (1): 49–71. ^ a b Turner, M.; Pratkanis, A. (1998). "A social identity maintenance model of groupthink". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2–3): 210–235. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2757. PMID 9705803. ^ "Does Liberal Truly Mean Open-Minded?". psychologytoday.com. ^ Cain, Susan (January 13, 2012). "The rise of the new groupthink". New York Times.. ^ https://fortune.com/2012/07/22/groupthink-fortune-1952/ ^ a b c d e f g h i Janis, I. L. (November 1971). "Groupthink" (PDF). Psychology Today. 5 (6): 43–46, 74–76. Archived from the original on April 1, 2010.CS1 maint: undeserving URL (hyperlink) ^ a b c d Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14002-1. ^ a b c d e Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-31704-5. ^ 't Hart, P. (1998). "Preventing groupthink revisited: evaluating and reforming groups in government". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2–3): 306–326. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2764. PMID 9705806. ^ a b McCauley, C. (1989). "The nature of social influence in groupthink: compliance and internalization". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (2): 250–260. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.250. ^ Whyte, W. H., Jr. (March 1952). "Groupthink". Fortune. pp. 114–117, 142, 146. ^ Safire, W. (August 8, 2004). "Groupthink". The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2012. If the committee's other conclusions are as out of date as its etymology, we're all in trouble. 'Groupthink' (one phrase, no hyphen) was once the identify of an editorial in Fortune magazine in March 1952 via William H. Whyte Jr. ... Whyte derided the notion he argued was held by means of a educated elite of Washington's 'social engineers.' ^ Whyte, W. H., Jr. (July 2012). "Groupthink". Fortune. ^ Cross, Mary (2011-06-30). Bloggerati, Twitterati: How Blogs and Twitter are Transforming Popular Culture. ABC-CLIO (published 2011). p. 62. ISBN 9780313384844. Retrieved 2013-11-17. [...] critics of twitter level to the predominance of the hive mind in such social media, the type of groupthink that submerges unbiased pondering in want of conformity to the group, the collective. ^ Taylor, Kathleen (2006-07-27). Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control. Oxford University Press (revealed 2006). p. 42. ISBN 9780199204786. Retrieved 2013-11-17. [...] leaders incessantly have beliefs which are very far from matching reality and which will turn out to be more excessive as they are encouraged by means of their followers. The predilection of many cult leaders for abstract, ambiguous, and subsequently unchallengeable ideas can further cut back the possibility of fact testing, whilst the intense milieu control exerted by means of cults over their individuals implies that many of the fact available for testing is equipped by way of the gang environment. This is seen in the phenomenon of 'groupthink', purported to have came about, notoriously, all the way through the Bay of Pigs fiasco. ^ Jonathan I., Klein (2000). Corporate Failure by way of Design: Why Organizations are Built to Fail. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 145. ISBN 9781567202977. Retrieved 2013-11-17. Groupthink by way of Compulsion [...] [G]roupthink a minimum of implies voluntarism. When this fails, the group is not above outright intimidation. [...] In [a national telecommunications corporate], refusal through the new hires to cheer on command incurred consequences now not not like the indoctrination and brainwashing ways associated with a Soviet-era gulag. ^ Cook Okay., The Theory of Groupthink Applied to Nanking, Stanford University, accessed 12 December 2020 ^ a b Hart, Paul't (1991). "Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink". Political Psychology. 12 (2): 247–278. doi:10.2307/3791464. JSTOR 3791464. ^ a b c d Aldag, R. J.; Fuller, S. R. (1993). "Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 113 (3): 533–552. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-06-18. ^ Aamodt, M. G. (2016). Group behavior, terms, and struggle. Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied manner (eighth ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. ^ Hartwig, R. (2007). Facilitating subject solving: A case learn the usage of the devil's advocacy methodology. Conference Papers - National Communication Association, 1. ^ Harvey, Jerry B. (1974). "The abilene paradox: The management of agreement". Organizational Dynamics. 3 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9. ISSN 0090-2616. ^ "Gauging Group Dynamics". January 21, 2015. ^ a b Flowers, M.L. (1977). "A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's groupthink hypothesis". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35 (12): 888–896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.12.888. ^ Schafer, M.; Crichlow, S. (1996). "Antecedents of groupthink: a quantitative study". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 40 (3): 415–435. doi:10.1177/0022002796040003002. ^ Cline, R. J. W. (1990). "Detecting groupthink: methods for observing the illusion of unanimity". Communication Quarterly. 38 (2): 112–126. doi:10.1080/01463379009369748. ^ a b c d e f g h i Park, W.-W. (1990). "A review of research on Groupthink" (PDF). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 3 (4): 229–245. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960030402. Archived from the unique (PDF) on 2011-04-09. ^ Manz, C. C.; Sims, H. P. (1982). "The Potential for "Groupthink" in Autonomous Work Groups". Human Relations. 35 (9): 773–784. doi:10.1177/001872678203500906. ^ Fodor, Eugene M.; Smith, Terry, Jan 1982, The power cause as a power on group resolution making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 42(1), 178–185. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.178 ^ Callaway, Michael R.; Marriott, Richard G.; Esser, James K., Oct 1985, Effects of dominance on organization decision making: Toward a stress-reduction clarification of groupthink, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 49(4), 949–952. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.949 ^ Carrie, R. Leana (1985). A partial check of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of organization cohesiveness and chief habits on defective resolution making, "Journal of Management", vol. 11(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1177/014920638501100102 ^ Raven, B. H. (1998). "Groupthink: Bay of Pigs and Watergate reconsidered". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2/3): 352–361. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2766. PMID 9705808. ^ a b Badie, D. (2010). "Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: explaining US policy shift toward Iraq". Foreign Policy Analysis. 6 (4): 277–296. doi:10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00113.x. ^ "CW Communications: Comparison of AM and FMD. Middleton, Introduction to Statistical Communication Theory, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, 1960 and, J. L. Lawson and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Threshold Signals, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, 1950, contain extensive discussions of both AM and FM.", Communication Systems and Techniques, IEEE, 2009, doi:10.1109/9780470565292.ch3, ISBN 978-0-470-56529-2 ^ Hart, Paul't (June 1991). "Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink". Political Psychology. 12 (2): 247–278. doi:10.2307/3791464. ISSN 0162-895X. JSTOR 3791464. ^ "Recovery after Challenger", Space Shuttle Columbia, Springer Praxis Books in Space Exploration, Praxis, 2005, pp. 99–146, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73972-4_3, ISBN 978-0-387-21517-4 ^ a b c d Hermann, A.; Rammal, H. G. (2010). "The grounding of the "flying financial institution"". Management Decision. 48 (7): 1051. doi:10.1108/00251741011068761. ^ Eaton, Jack (2001). "Management communication: the threat of groupthink". Corporate Communications. 6 (4): 183–192. doi:10.1108/13563280110409791. ^ a b Koerber, C. P.; Neck, C. P. (2003). "Groupthink and sports: an application of Whyte's model". International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 15: 20–28. doi:10.1108/09596110310458954. ^ Baron, R. (2005). "So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 37: 35. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37004-3. ISBN 9780120152377. ^ a b c Kramer, R. M. (1998). "Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How well has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time?". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2/3): 236–71. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2762. PMID 9705804. ^ Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. U. (1999). The group utility of groupthink and its obstacles in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 297-306. ^ Whyte, G. (1998). "Recasting Janis's Groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2/3): 185–209. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2761. PMID 9705802. ^ McCauley, C. (1998). "Group dynamics in Janis's theory of groupthink: Backward and forward". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 73 (2/3): 142–162. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2759. PMID 9705800. ^ Tsoukalas, I. (2007). "Exploring the microfoundations of group consciousness". Culture and Psychology. 13 (1): 39–81. doi:10.1177/1354067x07073650.