More handpicked essays just for you.
Groupthink theory essay
The importance of group cohesion
Discuss in a paragraph the phenomenon of groupthink
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Groupthink theory essay
Groupthink was developed in 1972 by Irving Janis and is a broad theory that insists everyone in a group is of one mind and cooperates together for the same decision. There are many different conditions when groupthink is being applied. Some of the main ones are cohesiveness, lack of impartial leadership, and lack of decision-making procedure (West & Turner, 2010, p. 245-246). The theory is applied during group thinking situations, which can be seen most notably in politics and other executive decision-making. Before understanding how these conditions are applicable, one must first fully understand the theory of groupthink by itself. From there it can be applied to politics and executive decision-making. The groupthink theory is a way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action. The theory is highly influential in explaining how groups make decisions. Janis argues that when groups are “in” groupthink, they immediately engage in a mentality to “preserve group harmony” (Turner, 2010, p. 240-241). This is also referred to as the cohesiveness in the …show more content…
A problem that may occur with appointing a jury duty leader is that the leader might feel powerful and put his/her opinions above the other members or even try to persuade them (Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009, p. 165). Mitchell and Eckstein (2009) state, “groups with promotional leaders produced more symptoms of groupthink, discussed fewer facts, and reached a decision more quickly than groups with non-promotional leadership” (p. 165). The Kent State board can be viewed as a lack of impartial leadership by not listening to the student’s desires to move the construction site of the new gymnasium. The board put their own opinions in front of the students, which caused the students to
Are you a self-reliant individual, or do you generate more ideas while working in a group? Groupthink has always been the dysfunctional idea that results from within a group that seeks harmony and conformity. Groupthink has been seen in Salem, MA, specifically in The Crucible, where townsfolk would go around accusing women, often innocent, of witchcraft. It has also been seen during the Red Scare, where Senator McCarthy would create a list of celebrities and other well-known people that he would accuse of being communists in the United States. At the time, Americans were against the idea of the communists and communism due to the fact that the Soviet Union, which had a communist government, was threatening to bomb the US. Thus, anyone who was
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
Turman, P. (October 13, 2000b). Group Decision Making & Problem Solving: Group Communication [Lecture] Cedar Falls, IA. University of Northern Iowa, Communication Studies Department.
During my visit to the Lafourche Parish District Attorney 's Office, I heard a copious amount of information that proved to be interesting, surprising, and some of it familiar to what I already knew or had learned in class. The first speaker, Joe Soignet, assistant district attorney, gave me a sense of what actually happens in a court case, specifically the process of selecting a jury. I had an idea of how picking a jury goes because of stories from friends and family who had been called for jury duty. I knew from them that as long as you answer with very strong opinions you can get out of jury duty. What I learned in class, however, is that picking a jury can take a long time, the right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the 17th Amendment and
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
...onflict. The minimization of groupthink makes people to be extra willing to make and articulate new ideas that help the team grow. Indeed, people living in an individualistic culture display more creativity compared to those from a collectivist culture. It enables them to concentrate on their strong points without getting afraid that they will be punished because of deviating from the set standards. It is this conflict of thoughts that creates competition that improves business as well as develops an efficient society. The author explains this using this quotation, “Know what you want in life and go after it. I worship individuals for their highest possibilities as individuals, and I loathe humanity, for its failure to live up to these possibilities” (Rand). What she means here is that an individual can attain anything if he or she maximizes his or her potential.
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
Individuals have their own personalities that can influence their enthusiasm and productivity within an organization. In addition, individuals also form groups and are part of teams that work together to reach a common goal within organization. According to Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, and Konopaske (2009) dedicated and cohesive teams can have a tremendous impact on organizations effectiveness and the global market. However, all of this happens within the frame-work of office politics and can hinder or enhance the organization’s effectiveness. Therefore, it is important to not only understand individuals, but also groups, teams and office politics within the organization. This will help leaders to plan, organize and motive individuals and groups for the best possible outcome for the organization.
The strongest leader in this movie by far is the Architect in the White Suit. Right off from the beginning at the original vote the Architect stated clearly his position in the matter. Against the rest of the group he strongly held his ground and fought for what he believed. Most people in his position would have changed their opinion immediately after realizing that he was completely outnumbered. However he continued to argue his points and reiterate the reasons why “evidence” needed to be questioned. His mind was simply brilliant. As he sat there listening to the other jurors reasoning he always found a way to prove them wrong or make them question themselves. Whether it was through logic, mathematical reasoning, or questioning of evidence he seemed to always wow the other jurors. His strength as a leader is that he is a natural born one. He wasn’t trying to look smart or impress anyone. He simply was doing what he was born to do.
It is critical for success in any job and at any level” (Kinicki & Fugate, 2012, p.5). The jurors had conflict and power struggles throughout the movie. The foreman, Juror #1, tried to keep the peace and avoid conflict in the jury room by taking the leadership role. He advised the other jurors to sit in order by jury number and to go around the table to discuss their points of view on the case. Each juror had their own motives, ideas, and beliefs about the young Latino male that grew up in the slums.
Groupthink has been thought to be the reason for some of the famous decision-making fiascoes, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Watergate cover-up, and the Challenger disaster. Even today, groupthink theory continues to be seen as a "defective process" (Aldag & Fuller, 1993). In general, the groupthink theory states that a group decision making of individuals in a cohesive group usually enters a state where the member's determination to unite at a single solution overrides their motivation to thoroughly account for the alternative choices (Moorhead, Ference & Neck, 1991). Moreover, the groupthink is characterized by a deterioration of cognitive efficiency, moral judgment and reality testing, which results from the pressures from the cohesiveness of the group (Dattner, 2011). The term "groupthink" was chosen by Irving Janis, who conceptualized the groupthink theory, due to its Orwelian connotation (Aldag & Fuller, 1993).
The most important thing the attorney needs to know about group dynamics is that members tend to compare their thoughts with those of the rest of the group and evaluating what the group prefers. Equally importantly, it is imperative to note that group polarization, groupthink and social influence occur within legislatures and on juries and are key factors as to why many groups take on extreme directions (Forsyth, 2010). Therefore, as the jury exchanges opinions amongst themselves, their individual partialities are checked and their perspectives will most likely widen, which will result in them seeing things from the perspective of other as their own views are limited. In the absence of group polarization, groupthink and social influence, each member may share their knowledge and make the whole the sum of the individual members. However, polarization makes them more reluctant to share information they perceive may contradict the budding group consensus.
My poor communication in terms of goal setting and planning can is further seen in Appendix C, which displays how my group members rated me an average of 2.8 in this area. In addition, another disadvantage of group decision making that we experienced was groupthink. In Henningsen’s writing, he discusses the symptoms of groupthink and argues that collective rationalisation and the pressure to conform are two symptoms of groupthink. We experienced these symptoms of groupthink as a result of poor communication and teamwork skills, because as a team we did not make our decisions rationally, we automatically agreed with the decisions put forward by the leader and failed to challenge these decisions by offering other alternatives or options. Moreover, we also felt the pressure to conform to these decisions because we were in the mindset of finishing the simulation and therefore did not want to delay the process any
Working in groups is challenging at times. Other times it is very rewarding. We are so focused on life that we do not take time to reflect on things as much as we should. Being in a Groups class has opened my eyes to a whole new world. I have begun to question, explore, and even understand how things work. I even get how they work sometimes. Not only is there a process involved in making individual decisions, process is involved in group decisions as well. This paper attempts give insight into my reflection of my group decision process.
As the random selection of jurors is not generally done based on their gender or ethnic origin, there can be seen to be bias as the jury is not well-represented. Decisions made under external pressure, undue influence of judicial pressure in R v McKenna where the trial judge threatened to lock the jury members up for an entire night if they did not reach a verdict within 10 minutes, in which the jury returned the verdict of guilty against the defendant within 6 minutes but the convictions were fortunately quashed on appeal due to material irregularity during the trial. Private or secret communication between the jury and judge – affect judicial impartiality and openness and trust in jury and further the judiciary. Steps: Judges are responsible for matters of the law while the jury is responsible for matters of the facts of the case which must notably be guided and directed by the presiding judge of the case which allows the judge to intervene when the jury cannot properly convict the defendant due to the prosecution’s very weak evidence.