Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Groupthink-No-More Guidelines for Teams
Promoting Diversity of Perspectives
Groupthink often stems from a lack of diverse perspectives within a team (Northagen, 2021). When everyone thinks alike or shares similar viewpoints, the team becomes susceptible to groupthink. To counter this, it is important to actively encourage the sharing of different opinions and perspectives (Dall'Acqua, 2021). This can be achieved by creating a team composition that is diverse in terms of expertise, experiences, and cultural backgrounds. Additionally, during discussions, the team should make it a point to solicit views from all members, especially those who are typically quiet or whose views are often overshadowed by the more vocal members (Van Bavel et al., 2020).
Establishing a Culture of Open Dialogue and Constructive Criticism
One of the reasons groupthink persists is the fear of conflict or the desire for harmony within the group. However, this can often lead to poor decision-making. Thus, it is essential to promote a work environment where team members feel safe to voice their ideas, doubts, and criticisms. This can be facilitated by leaders modeling the behavior themselves, ensuring that feedback is delivered constructively, and creating a psychologically safe space where team members are assured that their inputs are valued and they will not face retribution for voicing dissenting opinions (Van Bavel et al., 2020).
Devils Advocate Approach
The devil's advocate approach is a proven strategy to combat groupthink. In this, one person is assigned the role of a devil's advocate, tasked with deliberately challenging the prevailing viewpoints and decisions of the team. This stimulates debate and helps bring forth perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked (Northagen, 2021). If one regularly rotates this role among team members, one can also ensure everyone gets a chance to think critically and question assumptions.
Encouraging Independent Thought
Groupthink can often take root when team members form opinions based on the dominant view in the group rather than thinking independently (DallAcqua, 2021). To avoid this, team members should be encouraged to spend time thinking about the problem or decision at hand independently before team discussions. They should be allowed to form their own views without being influenced by the dominant opinion (Northagen, 2021). This approach not only brings more diverse views to the table but also gives less vocal members a chance to voice their thoughts.
Leadership that Encourages Diversity without Dominating
While strong leadership is vital to any team, it becomes counterproductive when the leader's voice becomes the dominant one. Leaders should guide the team by asking open-ended questions, facilitating discussions, and ensuring that all voices are heard. They should make a conscious effort to encourage diverse viewpoints and ensure that no single voice, including their own, overwhelms others.
Seeking External Inputs
No matter how diverse a team is, it typically operates within its own set of biases and assumptions. To challenge these and break the groupthink cycle, it is beneficial to seek external inputs. Inviting outsiders who are not part of the team or even the organization to meetings can provide fresh...…share a common goal and understand their roles and responsibilities clearly. A shared understanding of the teams purpose and clear role definition can foster cooperation and constructive interaction among team members.
Role of Conflict
Conflict is often perceived negatively, but when managed constructively, it can play a significant role in disrupting groupthink. Conflict, particularly cognitive conflict (conflict of ideas and perspectives), can encourage critical evaluation of ideas, promote diversity of thought, and lead to better and more innovative solutions. It can prevent premature consensus and stimulate discussion that brings underlying assumptions to the surface.
However, for conflict to be constructive rather than destructive, the organizational culture must shift towards accepting and managing conflict positively. This requires training team members in conflict management skills and creating an environment of psychological safety where differing opinions can be expressed without fear of retribution.
Influencing Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
Fostering an environment of psychological safety is key to influencing conformity, compliance, and obedience within a group. In such an environment, open communication is rewarded, dissent is seen as a positive rather than a threat, and questioning authority is encouraged. This can lead to a culture where individuals feel free to express independent thought, even if it goes against the group consensus.
It is essential to remember that personality plays a role in how prone individuals are to conformity. Some individuals, due to their personality traits, may be more inclined to conform to group norms. However, in a supportive and psychologically safe environment, all individuals, irrespective of their personality traits,…
References
Dall'Acqua, L. (2021). Exploring Cognitive Biases, Groupthink, and Polythink Syndrome in Security Decisions and Business Outcomes. In Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Risk Management and Cyber Intelligence (pp. 47-61). IGI Global.
Hisrich, R. D., & Soltanifar, M. (2021). Unleashing the creativity of entrepreneurs with digital technologies. Digital Entrepreneurship: Impact on Business and Society, 23-49.
Northagen, P. S. (2021). Dysfunctional Group? An Analysis of Groupthink Content in Introduction to Communication Studies Textbooks (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota).
" According to French (2009), some are of the opinion that avoiding groupthink is the main reason for Obama's assembly of apparent rivals in his cabinet. The author notes however that "healthy disagreement" is the best way to avoid groupthink rather than simply ensuring that there is no agreement within the group. Research Questions Several questions emerge from the research problem. The first revolves around President Obama's ability to maintain a paradigm
Groupthink Serving on a Jury amidst Groupthink Jury duty -- that horrible obligation all American citizens have to endure. No one wants to do it; yet, it is a crime to try and unlawfully get out of it. Serving on a jury does pace the individual in a position of power to judge the innocence or guilt of another person. This is not a job that should be taken lightly, although many
Groupthink Team Groupthink Unfortunately, groupthink can cause the individual can often not retain their ability to think critically within a group setting. The research shows that groupthink occurs when "members of a group (or the entire group itself) begin to make faulty decisions due to the presumed pressures that result in collaboration" within a group setting (Woodward & Edwards 2010). Under the high influence and pressure of the group, many individuals may
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
Groupthink can also influence the wider cultural context. Mullen, Calogero and Leader (2007) for example examined the phenomenon known as ethnonyms among different racial groups. Ethnonyms is a term referring to the designations that an in-group uses to distinguish itself from out-groups. These influence the groupthink dynamic, as it encourages homogeneous thinking and paradigms. Indeed, the authors found that intergroup hostility is directly related to these ethnonyms. The dangers of
The jury members listened and accepted what he said. When one person shows the other jury members that the knife is not so unique after all, they begin to realize there might be other things to reasonably doubt in the prosecution's case as well. This worked well in the story because the jury foreman didn't demand loyalty from the other jury members. He didn't any power over them. They wouldn't