Improve Decision Making, Avoid Groupthink
Remember the 2016 US presidential election? How everyone was so sure Hilary Clinton would win? Groups of people agreeing with each other tend to make some awful errors in judgment, wouldn't you agree? It doesn’t make much sense, many heads should think better than one, right? The key is in the should, because many heads can think better than one, but they seldom do because of groupthink.
For those unfamiliar with the phenomenon, in psychology, we refer to groupthink as the tendency for irrational decision-making in groups stemming from our desire to preserve harmony. We’ve looked into groupthink in the lab before, and it’s far more commonplace than you probably think. In 1957 Solomon Asch conducted a famous experiment wherein he asked participants to differentiate which of a set of lines was longer. He found that 74% of participants knowingly provided wrong answers at least once when grouped with confederates instructed to answer incorrectly*. This raises the question, if we can get people to nod along to something as incredibly obvious as the wrong answer in a multiple-choice test, what could people agree to when the answer is less obvious?
Psychologist Irving Janis divided groupthink symptoms into three clusters**: overestimation of the group (Illusions of invulnerability, and belief in the inherent morality of the group), closed-mindedness (collective rationalization, and stereotyping of the outgroup), and pressures toward uniformity (self-censorships, illusions of unanimity, direct pressure on dissenters, and self-appointed mind-guards).
Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare, and most people would like to think they don’t participate in it. But, remember, according to Asch’s experiment, most of us (74%) would engage in some level of conformity. Though there are factors that increase risk, such as:
1. High Group Cohesion: The tighter a group is, the less likely its members are to disturb harmony, and thus the more likely they are to conform.
2. Faults in Group Dynamics: Biased leadership, inconsistent decision-making methodologies, lack of diversity in the group, and isolation from the outside can all exacerbate groupthink symptoms.
3. Situational Context: External pressure can lead people to prioritize efficiency over good judgment, and a recent streak of failures can make harmony frail and thus less likely to be disturbed***.
Groups that meet these risk factors (any or all) should be the most mindful about groupthink, though really we should all be careful. Keeping that in mind, here are a few things we can do to avoid groupthink***.
1). Time away from the leader.
The leader’s views will always hold greater sway over the group than anyone else’s; to keep this from becoming overpowering, leaders should give their teams time to discuss issues without them present.
2). Leaders should be careful with opinions.
Unless something’s a deal-breaker, leaders should also avoid expressing opinions outright. Giving everyone a chance to speak up before taking a stance will make the team less likely to be swayed by it.
3). Encourage dissent.
Stating upfront that objections are welcome can make people more likely to share them. And it falls to the leader to know when to overrule objections for the sake of moving forward.
4). Use subgroups.
Oddly enough, a problem that stems from groups can be addressed by getting more of them. Dividing into subgroups makes it so that each has fewer people, and therefore less pressure to conform. Once they come back together, the differences that crop up in every subgroup will further limit groupthink.
5). Consider every alternative.
Before committing to anything, ensure that every alternative is considered. Assign at least one member to argue for each alternative, this might reveal a better path than what you originally thought.
6). Appoint a Devil’s Advocate
(Fun fact: did you know the term “devil’s advocate” comes from a former official position in the catholic church? Devil’s advocates used to argue against the canonization of saints, unearthing earthly flaws and the like.)
Once you’ve settled on an idea, appoint a group member to argue against it. Asch’s experiment found that when a participant was in a group with an “ally” (a confederate instructed to answer correctly), the chances of conforming dropped significantly, even when the rest of the group provided wrong answers. With that in mind, appointing a devil’s advocate can make people with reservations more likely to voice their disapproval.
7). Bring outside experts in.
One way to limit groupthink is to shake up the group dynamics, bring new people into the group for important decisions. Being from the outside, they are less likely to engage in groupthink, and their opinions help break groupthink that is already taking place.
8). Allow group members to discuss with friends and family.
Don’t disclose sensitive company information, but when it comes to decision making it is generally useful to speak with outsiders even if it’s just in broad strokes. Confidants can reassure group members that their reservations are valid.
Groupthink is a bit like the common cold of group dynamics, annoying but simple to treat. If you want to improve your company’s decision-making, start simple; before you commit to your next important plan, appoint a devil’s advocate, and then unearth the plan’s earthly flaws.
Sources
* Asch, S., 1951. Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments. p.233.
** Janis, I. L. (2008). Groupthink. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36(1), 36.
*** Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.
