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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...ancial Times stating, “The bottom line here is that Americans don't believe in President Obama's leadership. He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can't think of how he could do that.” When the president is popular and integrity of the Executive branch is high, the President can lead public opinion on specific issues. When the factors are low, generating support can be a challenge to overcome and they may engage in strategies (major policy speeches, bold policy initiatives, raising public awareness on national security) to increase popularity, competence, and prestige. We see many of these strategies now as the President campaigns for a second term and also in his running mates as they try and sway public opinion during their bus tours.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack of norms and central leadership, in addition social background of group members. The third, situational context includes the circumstances of the groups meeting, social roles and expected behavior. This notion is exemplified during the movie, "12 Angry Men". The purpose of this essay is to examine the movie content to display the groupthink symptoms in place. Groupthink consists of eight major factors that occur during the film's scenes, as the twelve men debate a premeditated murder court case. All of the factors continue to rise as the jury discusses the young man's fate. During the film, a unanimous vote must be reached, despite this one man refuses to vote guilty. In 1957 the Orson Welles directed film opens as the judge explains the case and its severity. Soon after the group forms as the 12 men enter the jury discussion room. During these scene frames, the case evidence is explained. As the men talk they give details of an old man living beneath the boy testified, that he heard a fight, stat...
The topic of this paper is Irving Janis’s concept of groupthink. There has been an increase in the utilization of groups or teams of people who come together in the decision-making process. There are many benefits to group decision-making with each member brings their own perspectives, beliefs, and ideas to the table. However, there are also negative dynamics such as groupthink that can hinder this process. Groupthink can lead to members believing that their opinions don’t hold as much weight as their peers, a group becoming overconfident in their knowledge of what is right, and the minimization of threats. Lack of thorough analysis of all available options or opportunities can have costly and long reaching negative consequences. Proactive
Instead of making decisions independently, now people always rely on others, such as groups or computers, to help them make a decision. Small groups often gives people different points of view and let people understand their situation much more clearly. However, these opinions from others may not be suitable for everyone. James Surowiecki uses the story of the Columbia Disaster to discuss efficiency of small groups. In his essay “Committees, Juries, and Teams: The Columbia Disaster and How Small Groups Can Be Made to Work”, Surowiecki tells us how the small groups can work properly instead of making people “dumber”. Even though, the small group contains people with great
Groupthink was coined by Janis and is defined as “a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group”(Cherry). So people will essentially forgo their beliefs to conform to the group to obtain harmony or if they don’t agree with a group idea they will simply keep quiet about it rather than challenge ideas. Janis classified eight different “symptoms” of groupthink. They are Illusions of invulnerability, which leads the members of the group to take part in risk-taking and become overly optimistic. Unquestioned beliefs, leads the members to ignore the possible aftermath that their decisions can make. Rationalizing, hinders members from recognizing warning signs and from reexamining their own beliefs. Stereotyping, leads the members of the group to criticize or write off any other group who may have differing opinions. Self-censorship, makes group members who may have differing opinions not disclose them to the group. "Mindguards",certain members of the group who are self-appointed censors that withhold information they find may disrupt group consensus. Illusions of unanimity, leads the members of the group to think that everyone believes the same things. Direct pressure, this is put on members to conform when they do end up expressing their own opinions or the rest of the group feels as if they are having differing opinions. Janis’s work was influential because it helped us examine the
In today’s society individuals/groups tend to behave, respond, adapt or become ineffectual depending on their surrounding environment. Individuals find it less tedious to conform to the majority vote than to stand out and speak their truth. Conformance has become a norm amongst individuals; we are pressured to conform to the majority vote just to feel socially appropriate. How can individuals grow and develop their own personality without voicing their opinions? Larger organizations tend to construe people into thinking they’re correct and what they are preaching is appropriate. When a group becomes institutionalized as an organization, it evolves shared beliefs, values, and assumptions (page 226). Formed by spontaneously developed relationships, formal groups are created by larger organizations. It is very important for formal groups to focus their attention on a set of beliefs, values, and composition. Introduced by Irving Janis, the phenomenon of “groupthink” was introduced to correlate group conformance on a higher level. Obtaining group dominance is crucial to many high-level decision makers in the government. This phenomenon has led to incompetent and disastrous decisions.
Groupthink relates to the movie The Ghost of Abu Ghraib because Military Intelligence were a cohesive group, so what one did they all did. Even though most of the Military Police didn’t believe what they were doing to the detainees were humanely correct, they did it anyways because their higher rank told them to do it. If they were telling them to do these violent acts, then they must have been okay in doing. Intelligence wanted the information quickly and this was one of the reason why they interrogated the detainees. The military police were angry and everyone wanted answers. The higher ranked intelligence guys thought abuse was the way to get the answers they needed and quickly. The textbook, ORGB, mentions illusions of invulnerability, which is when group members feel that they are above criticism, leading to risk taking. One of the top intelligence guys, Corporal Graner, was hungry for the power. Abusing the detainees made he feel powerful, so he did it more and
In the years of the Vietnam War, we can find a good example of what groupthink can do to a force as powerful as the United States. President Johnson drug the troops to such fate and struggle thinking that the United States would determine the course of events in Vietnam. The U.S. declared war to Vietnam under the excuse of defending their ally, South Vietnam, and to prevent further aggression. The Congress agreed and voted in favor of military action against North Vietnam because “the overall effect was to demonstrate before the world the unity of the American people in resisting Communist aggression” (Bacevich, 2014).
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 ...
Everyday a war is being waged, not in foreign countries- but in small neighborhoods and capital cities all over the world. A timeless battle to retain individual thought and action in an increasingly conformist society. The concept of a unanimous group-thinking society can be witnessed throughout history in the form of political controversies to pop culture and trends, to subtle influences in everyday life. The short narrative “Shooting an Elephant” written by George Orwell is a perfect example of group-thinking that implicates that to be accepted into these societal groups, one must do what is right by them, and not by the individual. Throughout the narrative, the author is influenced by increasing pressures from the crowd to shoot the elephant although it goes against his own personal convictions. The author desires to be accepted into the native's lives; no longer a social outcast. However, with this desire comes the knowledge that the group may or may not be correct in their brutal quest for blood.
Many people believe they are their own person and are free to make their own choices; however, few explore just how much a group can influence their behavior. This realm of influential group power has been analyzed by several psychologist to see how far people will bend to stay within a group mentality. Psychologists Asch, Zimbardo, McEwan, and Lessing defined a group mind as a mass of people who ignore their own morals and conscious to act as one whole entity because of obedience and pressure. As a result, this creates the potential for the group to become a destructively dangerous force.
What is the most important thing you think the attorney needs to know about group dynamics?
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.
Formation of groups or teams is not something that occurs overnight. Because it involves human beings that come from various backgrounds with different sets of values, forming a group and anticipating them to integrate and function dynamically cannot be expected to