Groupthink is an endemic problem of groups and bureaucracies charged with making decisions when the decision makers use peer pressure to limit debate, enforce an often false consensus, and avoid conflict.
Groupthink is similar to other forms of social influence and etiquette such as Political Correctness in that one element of groupthink is the suppression of options, ideas, and viewpoints that are outside of the status quo or the comfort zone of a subset of the decision makers.
Groupthink is used in hierarchical groups to preserve the power and prestige of the leadership who view underlings with suspicion and challenges to their ideas as attacks on their authority.
Groupthink is also common in groups of true peers where individuals will avoid conflict or expressing a diversity of ideas to avoid giving offense, being seen as foolish or outlandish, or avoid sticking out or making waves.
Groupthink results in suboptimal decisions as only a limited set of options are considered and debate is suppressed. Logic, scientific, and rational paths to reach decisions are abandoned in favor of speedy, irrational but feel good solutions. Individual concerns are not voiced or are ignored and the well being of the group dynamic is placed above making optimal decisions.
Eight Signs of Groupthink:1. A shared illusion of invulnerability, which leads to an
extraordinary degree of over-optimism and risk-taking.2. Manifestations of direct pressure on individuals who express
disagreement with or doubt about the majority view, making it clear
that their dissent is contrary to the expected behavior of loyal group
members.3. Fear of disapproval for deviating from the group consensus, which
leads each member to avoid voicing his misgivings and even to minimize
to himself the importance of his doubts when most of the others seem
to agree on a proposed course of action.4. A shared illusion of unanimity within the group concerning all the
main judgments expressed by members who speak in favor of the majority
view, partly resulting from the preceding symptom, which contributes
to the false assumption that any individual who remains silent during
any part of the discussion is in full accord with what the others are
saying.5. Stereotyped views of the enemy leaders as evil, often accompanied
by the assumption that they are too weak or too stupid to deal
effectively with whatever risky attempts are made to outdo them.6. An unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the in-group,
which inclines the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences
of their decisions.7. The emergence of self-appointed mind guards within the
group—members who take it upon themselves to protect the leader and
fellow members from adverse information that may prevent them from
being able to continue their shared sense of complacency about the
effectiveness and morality of past decisions.8. Shared efforts to construct rationalizations in order to be able to
ignore warnings and other forms of negative feedback, which, if taken
seriously, would lead the members to reconsider the assumptions they
continue to take for granted each time they recommit themselves to
their past policy decisions.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Baa-a-aa?
eli
Sounds like PETA to me.
Chris it is not surprising to me the vehement rhetorical replies back in 2008 you got to this posting.
http://www.border-wars.com/2013/08/akc-big-fat-hippocrites.html
How else could so many people be willing to just go “Baa. Baa ” if the true purpose of Breed Clubs were to promote the breed and it’s Health?
Not fully aware of parallel to PETA replied here. However, PETA and Animal Activists do follow the same eight points listed in this article. Seems a new Label is “Hell Raiser”? So when one Barks, and not Wags their tail ..we are called Hell Raisers?
Now there are two ways to look at this Label. “A rowdy, troublesome, or unruly person.
a person who causes trouble by drinking, being violent, or otherwise behaving outrageously.
Or do they mean a person with intestinal fortitude and a backbone to attempt to correct in a peaceful academic manner? …
Hi Kathy, I believe the term you are looking for is “devil’s advocate”, a person hired to argue against the group to avoid group think. One of the newer zombie movies popularised this idea with a newer, less religious term, “the tenth man”, whose job is to assume that if 9 people in the group believe the same thing, then they must be wrong.
Devil’s advocate originally referred to a canon lawyer in the Roman Catholic Church appointed to argue against the canonization or beatification of a person. Yes, I saw this tenth man parallel as well.
There is as well much history within Collie writers that wrote in the style which term was well known even by the Author “”Devil’s Advocate. Long before we had the needed Scientific discoveries and facts. Seems now this type of labeling has been changed to Hell Raiser? The history terminology hardly has the academic credit that “Devil’s Advocate would you say?
This is why I state this one is my favorite of the posting by Chris:
“7. The emergence of self-appointed mind guards within the
group—members who take it upon themselves to protect the leader and
fellow members from adverse information that may prevent them from
being able to continue their shared sense of complacency about the
effectiveness and morality of past decisions.”
Hi Kathy, I believe “Hell Raiser” refers to ACTIONS, which might not be illegal, but are excessive, or beyond what is normal. Examples: drinking too much, partying more than other people, riding a motercycle too fast or between the lanes, having sex with strangers, going to orgies, getting into fights, not using caution.
A devil’s advocate uses WORDS to argue against an established idea or new proposal.
Both are often independent minded people. Except if the devil’s advocate only argues for the return of ideas or values which he grew up with.
May in times when command of the English language with texting and younger generation only able to print their name, who knows? Regardless the part about independent not a group thinker seems reasonable. Debating again is another reasonable assumption of current usage. Personally like the 10th Man new concept. This describes a person today that keeps groups thinking with diversity.
This was sent by a friend: Hope you enjoy this as much as I did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://hellotumo.com/2013/06/30/how-to-innovate-use-the-10th-man-idea-from-world-war-z/