Communication and Groupthink

Communication and GroupThink Do you agree with Hart's criticism that Janis' suggestions for avoiding Groupthink "inadvertently erode collegiality and foster group factionalism"? Do you think Hart's suggestions are preferable, or do they introduce other unintended negative consequences? Can the two sets of suggestions coexist? Although Janis research on the phenomenon of groupthink has opened an entirely new field within group dynamics, the initial suggestions that he offered to groups to avoid such instances could certainly "inadvertently erode collegiality and foster group factionalism." Some level of group think is actually natural and health especially in regards to the cohesiveness of the group.

However, Janis believes that the focus on vigilant decision making by a five step effort to create and follow objectives. However, over focusing on the groupthink issue can actually create an entire new set of problems and reduce the functionality of the group. Hart has prepared a separate set of suggestions of what groups that might be prone to groupthink can do. The first is external oversight and control.

This injects some measure of accountability into the groups actions at all times given that they must report and justify their decisions. Another suggestion is whistle blowing in which someone can report any unethical decisions or the existence of a groupthink to the oversight committee. Whistle-blowing is an important addition that has served many organizations well however there must also be protection for the "whistleblowers" so that they are not afraid to come forward. Finally, Hart offers suggestions that include integration, critique, and closing.

All of these are methods of balancing consensus and majority decisions which are testable in some way. Analyze a recent government decision using Groupthink. Identify all the relevant concepts from the theory, and come to a conclusion as to whether Groupthink may have been at work in influencing the outcome. Support your ideas with examples. Despite the claims that the U.S.

government made about possessing solid evidence that indicated the Iraqi military possessed weapons of mass destruction, it seems that they relied solely on the evidence produced by an informant named Curveball. They based their entire intelligence operation on the claims of one man who was even described by the German intelligence agency as unreliable. Curveball eventually came public recently and admitted that his story was fabricated. "Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he told the Guardian (Chulov and Pidd 2011). "They gave me this chance.

I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy." There seem to be many symptoms of groupthink evident in this decision. The.