Irving Janis's theory of groupthink and decision-making

¶ … vignette is that Julie is caught up in a classic case of groupthink. We typically believe that groups perform better than single individuals; however, this is not always the case. Psychologist Irving Janis set the ball in motion regarding identifying under what conditions group decisions are biased. Janis (1972) studied a number of American foreign-policy failures such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion and America's missing of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and concluded that poor decisions occurred largely because of the phenomenon termed "groupthink."

Groupthink occurs when the members of the group have a strong need to maintain conformity and harmony. Critical thinking in these situations is often suspended and leads to poor decision-making by the group. Janis (1972) described several facets of groups that are more likely to engage in groupthink that include a very strong and authoritarian leader, high group cohesiveness, high need and pressures towards for conformity and unanimity, a tendency to discourage differing opinions, and the illusion that the group is invulnerable. Janis (1972) believed that the causes of groupthink included the high group cohesiveness that resulted in a devaluation of individual opinions, insulated the group from outside influences, and resulted in the members of the group having similar philosophies and backgrounds without much diversity. There is also a lack of impartial leadership in these groups and they are often pressured by external circumstances such as highly stressful threats, moral dilemmas, or limited time to come to a decision (Kolb 2013). The group cannot see obvious flaws in their decisions. The group cannot see obvious flaws in their decisions. For example, the reasons for the failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion initiated by John F. Kennedy and his advisers were quite clear to anyone outside the group; however, Kennedy and his group members believed they had an infallible plot to overthrow Castro. It was not until after the plot had failed miserably and humiliated the United States that the group realized their poor decisions/planning.

Janice (1972) advises that in order to avoid a groupthink situation that the group should assign at least one member to critique group proposals in group decisions and that this member be allowed to speak freely and to discuss alternatives to the group's proposals. In addition Janice (1972) suggested that groups that are highly cohesive (have a shared sense of identity) are less apt to view their own mistakes or to accept criticism from others. On the other hand groups very low in group cohesiveness may not be able to identify with each other and may not be able to come to any type of decision at all due to no commitment to the goals and focus of the group. Thus, groups that have more moderate levels of group cohesiveness share some sense of identity but yet are not so bound to each other and to the group that they suspend their own critical thinking (Kolb 2013).

Julie needs to step up and assume an active role. She should consider the difference between simply managing this situation and assuming a leadership role in changing it (Kolb 2013; Zaleznik 1977). First, Managers administer in situations, whereas leaders innovate in situations. A leader will typically develop new ideas, think outside the box, look for new strategies and trends, and constantly look towards the future. Managers focused to maintain on the already established a situation or environment and attempt to make things run within the established procedure. Secondly, managers rely on control of their subordinates, where as a leader inspires the trust of others. Managers assist people to develop their own abilities and talents and use them within the confines of the structure of an organization following rules and guidelines, leaders inspire people to use their talents but also to try and go beyond their abilities and create more than what is expected/required of them. Finally, managers do not ponder over what or why successes or failures mean, but instead are more interested in the how and when of the procedure in order to execute a plan/procedure accordingly. They are interested in results and achieving results in a specific prescribed manner. Leaders are more interested in the why and what regarding outcomes. They are more likely to accept failure as a learning processes and successes as an opportunity to improve and change as opposed simply as a process to be repeated.