In a November, 1971 classic article in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, U.S.
psychologist Dr. Irving Janis introduced the term "groupthink" into the
vocabulary of behavioural science. He used the term in trying to account
for why so many obviously foolish U.S. foreign policy decisions had come
from the White House over the previous 30 years. These decisions resulted
in the Pearl Harbor debacle, the Korean War stalemate, the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, and the utter tragedy of the Viet Nam war then taking place.

Is the situation any different now considering the U.S. debacle of
the war in Iraq and the not very secret decision to wage a war in Iran in
the not-too-distant future.

According to Dr. Janis "groupthink" is "the mode of thinking that
persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a
cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of
alternative courses of action." He adds, "the term refers to a
deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as
a result of group pressures."

Like some invisible cancer, when leaders and advisers suffer from
groupthink, the results can be terminal--often long before anyone realizes
there is any problem at all.

But like cancer, groupthink has clear danger signals for those
wise enough to be aware. Dr. Janis writes that groupthink sets in "when
the members of decision-making groups become motivated to avoid being too
harsh in their judgments of their leaders' or their colleagues'
ideas. They adopt a soft line of criticism, even in their own
thinking. At their meetings, all the members are amiable and seek complete
concurrence on every important issue, with no bickering or conflict to
spoil the cozy, `we-feeling' atmosphere."

In fact, in his article, Dr. Janis describes the "eight main
symptoms of groupthink".

1. Invulnerability. Those afflicted with groupthink in an advisory
   group share an illusion of invulnerability. This makes them believe that
   they can take great risks without being hurt and they ignore warnings.
2. Rationale. Groupthinkers also collectively construct
   rationalizations in order to insulate themselves from warnings and other
   forms of negative feedback.
3. Morality. Groupthinkers believe unquestionably in the inherent
   morality of their in-group. This belief inclines members to ignore laws,
   proper business or government practice, and ethical consequences of their
   decisions.
4. Stereotypes. Groupthinkers hold stereotypes of opponents--often
   deluding themselves into thinking them weak, stupid, and ineffectual.
5. Pressure. Groupthinkers apply direct pressure to any individual
   who momentarily expresses doubts about any of the group's shared illusions
   or who questions the validity of the arguments supporting a policy
   alternative favoured by the majority. Dr. Janis writes, "this gambit
   reinforces the concurrence-seeking norm that loyal members are expected to
   maintain."
6. Self-censorship. Groupthinkers avoid deviating from what appears
   to be group consensus. They keep silent about their misgivings and even
   minimize to themselves the importance of their doubts.
7. Unanimity. Groupthinkers share an illusion of unanimity within the
   group concerning almost all judgements expressed by members who speak in
   favour of the majority view. Dr. Janis notes that around the meeting table
   of groupthinkers there is "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."
8. Mindguards. Dr. Janis writes that groupthinkers "sometimes appoint
   themselves as mind guards to protect the leader and fellow members from
   adverse information that might break the complacency they shared about the
   effectiveness and morality of past decisions."

But groupthink also can be prevented, treated, even eliminated
altogether. Dr. Janis suggests nine means of therapy.

1. The leader of a policy-forming group should assign the role of
   critical evaluator to each member, encouraging the group to give high
   priority to open airing of objections and doubts.
2. When the key members of a hierarchy assign a policy-planning
   mission to any group within their organization, they should adopt an
   impartial stance instead of stating preferences and expectations at the
   beginning.
3. The organization routinely should set up several outside
   policy-planning and evaluation groups to work on the same policy question,
   each deliberating under a different leader.
4. The leader should require each member to discuss the group's
   deliberations with associates in their own unit of the organization at
   intervals before the group reaches a final consensus.
5. The group should invite one or more outside experts to each meeting
   on a staggered basis and encourage the experts to challenge the views of
   the core members.
6. At every general meeting of the group, whenever the agenda calls
   for an evaluation of policy alternatives, at least one member should play
   devil's advocate--challenging those who advocate the majority position.
7. Whenever the policy issue involves relations with opponents, the
   group should devote a sizable block of time to a survey of all warning
   signals from the opponents, especially with respect to the intentions of
   rivals.
8. When the group is surveying policy alternatives for feasibility and
   effectiveness, it should from time to time divide into two or more
   subgroups to meet separately, under a different chairperson, and then
   re-convene to hammer out differences.
9. After reaching a preliminary consensus about what seems to be the
   best policy, the group should hold a "second-chance" meeting at which time
   every member expresses "as vividly as possible" any and all of their
   residual doubts. They then rethink the entire issue before making a
   definitive choice.

Whether or not groupthink was involved in the fall from power of
our former high flyers is known only to them and their advisers. But
leaders should learn that preventing groupthink produces better advice,
results in better decisions, and ensures better health and longer life to
the group and its leader. If not before, hopefully, we will all know it now.

And knowledge is power.

Complete News Archives: 2004 September: How they get us to eat worms August: Bellybutton fuzz ... among other things July: Narcissistic Rage in Leaders June: Why We Sleep and Other Trivia May: No Wonder Torture is So Common April: Freak Show March: The Lemming Factor February: Are we naturally aggressive and violent? January: Our Quirky Body Quirks 2003 December: Imaginary Companions November: How to become a genuis October: Cryptohumans September: Sex & Gender Trivia August: What's in our Future? July: Self-Cannibalism June: This Will Kill Ya May: Still more of What's New about The Odd Body and Brain March: About Face February: Why we are all brothers and sisters January: The "Curse" That Won't Die 2002 December: Why is your face so red? November: How to be creative October: The Little Differences Between Men and Women September: The Mars Effect August: Weird mysteries of creative giants July: How many senses do we have? June: The Samson Syndrome May: Phantom Limb Syndrome April: Can we talk to the unborn? March: Movie Revelations February: Navel Secrets January: If Whales Can Do It? 2001 December: Body Odysseys of the Famous November: The Psychology of Smell October: Light, Colour and Music Therapy September: Three Brain Mysteries August: Baldness July News June: Laughing