Groupthink is a term describing the idea that people in a group or meeting will stay quiet out of fear of the disagreement of others. It’s easier to remain quiet and have the meeting end or have the group move on than to spend another hour in disagreement or having to defend one’s beliefs or opinions:
Collective decision-making failures are often attributed to group members’ unwillingness to express unpopular opinions, and incident investigations frequently name lack of dissent as a causal factor (Sunstein, 2006). The investigation following the Columbia space-shuttle explosion, for instance, cited a culture at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in which “it is difficult for minority and dissenting opinions to percolate up through the agency’s hierarchy” (Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003, p. 183).
Long-standing psychological explanations refer to “groupthink” (Janis, 1972) and a “spiral of silence” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974), positing that group members are reluctant to publicly express private concerns about collective problems if they believe that other members are likely to disagree with them.
Having worked at a number of companies over my career, I can tell you this is a very real phenomenon and has silenced my own opinions on more than one occasion. It is just easier sometimes to swim with the current than to try and fight against it (especially if you don’t hold a popular opinion).
Combined with the previous research on the topic, you might think there’s no hope to combat groupthink. Since there are very real social costs to dissent within a group or organization, people with alternative opinions are expected to remain silent. When dissent is expressed, it is expected to come from those who care the least.
But new research recently published in Psychological Science suggests that there may be exceptions to groupthink and ways to overcome it when it is encountered.
In a new series of experiments, volunteers who weakly identified with their group (e.g., those who do not value being a student at their university) remained silent if they thought there might be dissension.
Volunteers who strongly identified with their group were more willing to express their concerns, regardless of how they viewed others’ opinions. As the study notes, strongly identified members are thought to be more attentive to group-related problems, and perceptions that the status quo is harmful to the collective may trigger expression of dissenting opinions. These folks may be more willing to bear social costs associated with dissent in order to improve group outcomes.
The researcher notes that the “pattern among strongly identified members is perhaps best described as “vigilant”; if there was reason to suspect a potential problem was harmful to the group (either because they thought so or believed that other group members did), strongly identified members publicly expressed heightened concern.”
The key to putting these findings into practice is to cultivate members who most strongly identify with the group’s goals and mission. These are the folks who can squash groupthink dead in its tracks when it occurs, and help ensure that all members’ — even those who weakly identify with their group — opinions are heard. This can be a simple leadership skill readily taught by describing the problem with groupthink (potentially valuable dissent is never heard nor considered), and its solution (identify and assign strong-identity members and counsel them in ways to be vigilant in such meetings and group projects).
Groupthink can be deadly to an organization and kill innovation. Stopping it in its tracks helps keep your organization flexible, fresh, and open to all ideas and dissent. These are key to reducing the “Yes boss!” atmosphere that can become prevalent, especially as organizations age.
Reference:
Packer, D.J. (2009). Avoiding Groupthink: Whereas Weakly Identified Members Remain Silent, Strongly Identified Members Dissent About Collective Problems. Psychological Science. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02333.x
4 comments
Great article, and the research is interesting. I do wonder if “empowerment” is a co-variable to identification, e.g., where laws like the ADA might back up folks making dissenting opinions. Thanks for making me think, and giving me some “homework” to do on this important subject! “Nobody is smarter than all of us” (author unknown) should prevail in social and organizational groups.
Nobody is smarter than all of us” is cuteand simplistic; but not necessarily true.
More correct MIGHT be: “Nobody knows more about EVERYTHING than all of us.”
But as an example, suppose six of us get together to discuss drones.Then I ask a friend who is a U S Air force Drone Designer and operator of a Drone controlling computer in Afghanistan–to join the group. Far more thaan likely, he or she will know more than all of us.
Wait, thimnk i know what you are going to say: “But his knowledge is added to the group, so the group still knows more than he or she does.”
But if Consensus is the criterion, then his decision might well disagree with the group.– depends on object of the meeting, of course. rop 1.24.14
very nice, this led me to a conclusion, if someone doesn’t care a lot about his job (maybe because he has a side business) will try to avoid long discussions because he won’t be affected badly if any decision was taken compared to his college who depends heavily on his job
now i can know in a meeting who is really interested in the job and who is not 😀 thanks
What a poorly considered opinion. If the person who cares the most will be the most vocal, so will the person who has the desire to take control of the agenda for their own purposes. What this article promotes is the worst form of Groupthink. If someone, especially the most socially active of the group expresses an opinion, they can and do silence the dissenters. The amount of care about something is not a indicator of the rightness of things. Science once believed the sun revolved around the earth. The dissenter of that idea was silenced by the groupthink of the time.