Action Assignment 3-2 Avoiding Groupthink Critical Thinking Examples

1. The most important idea I learned in Part Five was the dangers of groupthink and how to recognize it. Teams are essential to effective business but there are definite possible downsides such as the possibility of groupthink, so it is useful to recognize the warning signs and take steps to avoid its pitfalls. In particular, the examples of groupthink such as the failure to better fortify Pearl Harbor, the approval of the Challenger launch, the entry into the Korean War by crossing the 38th parallel, and the Bay of Pigs all became more understandable given the breakdown in group communication that occurred. In some ways, I believe that many well established movie directors and book authors end up with their organizations practicing groupthink and that results in inferior products as no one within the group is willing to speak up and point out weaknesses of the latest movie or book project.
Of the eight symptoms described, I was particularly interested in rationalization, self-censorship, and direct pressure as they are the symptoms of groupthink that are most common in my experience. Rationalization is understandable and in some ways is necessary once a decision is made but when combined with overt censure and rejection by the team during the decision-making process, it is not a suitable course of action. Self-censorship is a problem for some employees more than others, so it is important to balance a team composition to avoid having an important decision made by a collection of highly self-censored people (or “yes” men and women). Direct pressure is now such a common component of the business world, techniques to not allow it to color important decisions are an absolute necessity, or almost all policy or decision-making processes will be at least somewhat tainted.
2. As a director of a small information technology department, the techniques described by Janus to avoid groupthink were the approaches from this section that have the most applicability. It takes a confident leader to allow each member of a group to act as a critical evaluator and accept criticism of his or her own ideas, but certainly the business would be better off and could avoid potentially disastrous decisions if even just this one adjustment to how teams are led is made. The second suggestion is a traditional role of facilitation and again, it takes a leader who can subsume their ego for the good of the group to adopt a neutral stance when faced with a problem that needs solving. However, the value in having a facilitator in a meeting room and particularly a facilitator leader is well established for more reasons than just avoiding groupthink, although that is the primary end result.
Further, using outside evaluators is always a valuable idea when faced with a critical or important decision, although one often beyond the budget of a small information technology department. Having an appointed “devil’s advocate” or even an in-house attorney tasked with challenging the team’s thinking could provide alternative risk evaluations within budget. Finally, the idea of a “second chance” meeting is something that cannot be used universally, but perhaps strategically, for particularly high impact decisions. It makes sense to implement each of these ideas, four of which are well within the abilities of even a leader of a small group, and they will function to reduce the possibility of a groupthink mistake within the department. It will take a personal leadership effort, but the return value is worth the attempt.