You are in a staff meeting. When your group’s leader asks for input regarding a bold, new initiative, the silence is deafening.
You look around the room. You see nothing but affirming nods and smiling faces. But you also see something else. It’s writing on the wall you can’t ignore: “This initiative is a disaster in the making.” For a fleeting moment, you think about saying something. But the next moment, you feel an even stronger urge to be a team player. So you say nothing.
Has this happened to you?
More specifically, if you’re the group’s leader, are you aware of what just happened within the group?
Welcome to Groupthink.
Perhaps you’ve never heard of Groupthink. It occurs when a sound decision-making process is impaired by a greater desire to preserve group unity. This relentless pursuit of harmony can cause a group to see the world through a biased and narrow lens. This leads the group to take irrational chances, reach premature conclusions and, in the end, causes good people to go along with bad ideas. They may even be willing to follow leaders who peddle deceptively simple solutions, optimism and nostalgia.
In the 1922 book Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, Sigmund Freud provides a good description of Groupthink and identifies problems with groups. Freud explains when people are in a group, they’re more likely than not to be swept up in a shared fear or belief rather than engage in reasoned problem solving. This is because Groupthink distorts an accurate picture of reality, while at the same time strengthening a group’s most cherished goals and ideals.
Moreover, Groupthink can often promote a love for an idealized leader. Freud warns that “masterful, absolutely narcissistic, self-confident, and independent” leaders are loved by the groups that promote Groupthink, especially in cases when these groups perceive they are under threat or duress. Groupthink often seeks conformity by stamping out dissent.
Insider groups — private clubs and fraternities, political parties, religious groups and even schools and businesses — are particularly prone to Groupthink. One recent egregious example of Groupthink occurred at Penn State where, for several years, the highest levels of leadership covered up multiple accounts of child abuse committed by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
A well-known example of Groupthink in the workplace can be found in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Before the launch, some engineers on the project raised concerns about the ability of the O-ring seals to withstand the launch temperatures, and so they opposed the launch. These engineers were pressured by the group to reconsider and reverse their initial no-go position, which they did with disastrous results.
Even in the most open organizations, people are reluctant to expose errors in judgment or contradict their leaders. This is especially likely here in Indiana, located smack dab in the middle of a “Midwestern nice” culture, where people are innately polite and have an indirect communication style.
The need for a group to conform — Groupthink — is an all-too-common ailment that can adversely affect good people and healthy groups, making them inefficient, unproductive and dysfunctional. In order for groups to make sound decisions, leaders must take the time to create a work environment where diverse points of view are not only welcomed, but also valued.
Charlotte Westerhaus-Renfrow is a clinical assistant professor of management and business law at Indiana University Kelley School of Business — Indianapolis.
