Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
Running Head: Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
Diversity as a preventative tool against Groupthink
in organizational decision making
Peggy Lunn
INF 2149: Decision Making in Organizations
Dr. Chun Wei Choo
February 22, 2011
1
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
2
Groupthink; a term that gained notoriety through his work, Victims of Groupthink by
Irving L. Janis in 1972, utilized in Janis and Mann’s (1977) Decision Making, and
followed up in Janis (1982), Groupthink : Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and
Fiascoes, is a social-psychological phenomenon that can occur within group dynamics.
Although the term Groupthink’s origin is accredited to the journalist and organizational
analyst William H. Whyte as early as the 1950s, and much further research has been
done in the years since its publication, Janis’ original contribution remains a seminal
work in this area of study. His approach of outlining, in real world case analysis format,
the disastrous effects of Groupthink continues to be used; albeit in many revised forms,
within the literature of social psychology, organizational theory, and in discussions of
ethics surrounding business and public administration.
According to Janis’ original theory, 5 recognized antecedent conditions of Groupthink
exist. When these recognized antecedent conditions exist, 8 symptoms along with 7
symptoms of defective decision making can become evident (Janis, 1972). In the
years since this theory was introduced, subsequent researchers have offered many
derivations, offshoots and subsets of the original antecedents and symptoms, but Janis’
primary concepts are still considered valid reference points for both researchers and for
managers within organizations.
High cohesiveness of group members is one antecedent condition of Groupthink
(Janis, 1972). And while the term cohesiveness is usually considered a positive one, in
an organization, it can have negative consequences. In contemporary organizations,
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
3
group cohesiveness extending from the homogeneity of group members’ can manifest
itself in many different ways. It can exist in ways that reflect members’ social identities
(gender, ethnic and/or cultural background, religious affiliation) or in ways that reflect
professional identity (academic discipline specific training or methodological approach or
members’ personal or collective values, as well as the overall corporate culture adhered
to within the organization). Proactive diversity practices in hiring, as well as in project
management or overall decision making approach, designed to offset the pre-existing
conditions that allow for Groupthink, are tools that organizations can implement and
customize from within their organization to reduce the incidence of Groupthink and its
negative consequences.
As stated, Irving L. Janis coined the term Groupthink and the case analysis approach
to devising strategies to counter its negative effects. His further work added detail to
the generalizations about what can happen in highly cohesive groups. Janis defines the
concept of Groupthink and who is susceptible to it. He states that when the primary
purpose of the group is concurrence seeking that, “ Irrespective of the personality
characteristics and other predispositions of the members who make up the policymaking group, the Groupthink syndrome is expected to emerge whenever the
situational conditions that are conducive to it are present” (1982, 243). Further, “When
a group is moderately or highly cohesive, the more of the antecedent conditions… that
are present… the greater the chances of defective decision-making as a result of the
Groupthink syndrome” (Janis, 1982, 245). And while still influential, Janis’s early work
is, by no means, the extent of academic literature available on the topic of Groupthink.
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
4
Within the same era, others noted similar potential for defective decision making
when concurrence- sometimes termed consensus- seeking was the primary goal. Raven
(1974) in Janis (1982) states, “…consensus as desired outcome
played in flawed decision making of the Nixon administration during the Watergate
scandal. ..All these Groupthink-dominated groups were characterized by strong
pressures toward uniformity, which inclined their members to avoid raising
controversial issues, questioning weak arguments, or calling a halt to soft-headed
thinking” (130).
Adding to the discipline scope of literature on the topic in the early years following
Janis’ original work, concepts of Groupthink were tested by Flowers (1977) in a
laboratory setting. Flowers’ laboratory based tests of some implications of Janis’s
Groupthink hypothesis appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
McCauley (1979) offered a psychology based e-examination of Janis’ original
findings. He summarized, “The essence of the pathology was described as a group
pressure for consensus that interfered with full consideration of available alternatives
and risks, and this pressure was hypothesized to be a direct function of the cohesion of
the decision-making group” (McCauley, 250). He offers an accessible definition of
Groupthink as public compliance without private acceptance (Ibid, 260). McCauley,
however, disagreed with Janis’ original view of the role cohesion played in Groupthink.
His work concluded, “ …cohesion and situational conditions of crisis, external threat,
perceived difficulty of decision, and recent group failure are not thus correlated”
(Ibid,260).
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
5
In the mid 1980s, Smith (1984) stayed true to Janis’ original model of indentifying 8
symptoms of Groupthink in his look at the attempt by the United States to rescue its
hostages in Tehran; what he termed a foreign-policy fiasco. He states, “The basic
argument – that excessive esprit de corps and amiability restrict the critical faculties
of small decision-making groups, thereby leading to foreign-policy fiascos – is both
an appealing and a stimulating one. In addition, it is also an argument that is
capable of being tested against empirical evidence “(Smith, 1984, abstract).
Miranda and Saunders (1995) focused on the prevention of Groupthink in their work
describing Group Support Systems (GSS). Similar to McCauley, their introduction offers
the reader a highly coherent summary of Janis’ original theory when they state,
“The Groupthink problem…refers to the propensity of groups to respond to
interpersonal pressure in such a manner that group members’ striving for unanimity
overrides their motivation to analyze alternative courses of action realistically. Thus,
Groupthink refers to a defective mode of decision-making pursued by groups that
emphasizes consensus rather than a careful analysis of options” (193).
Their computer technology based approach introduced perhaps the most marked
shift in recommended Groupthink intervention strategies. According to these
researchers, within their field of study, Organization Development (OD), “…ODers
frequently fail to adopt Janis’ recommendation for structural and procedural changes in
groups… GSS provide ODers procedural mechanisms to address this criticism and
corrective defective Groupthink decision making situations” (Miranda and Saunders,
1995, 194). The approach shift offered in this work was a move away from providing,
“…ex post facto suggestions for preventing Groupthink in the next round of decision
making…” towards finding intervention strategies for groups in the throes of Groupthink
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
6
(Miranda and Saunders, 1995, 194). GSS represent a set of technologies – message
exchange, document preparation, public screen interface, access to external information
sources, anonymity – that shift the focus away from the individuals presenting the ideas
and on to tasks (Miranda and Saunders, 1995, 199). This task focus, “… helps
overcome the undesirable affiliative features of cohesion such as discouraging dissent.
Focusing on the task may help encourage the dissent necessary for evaluating
alternatives fully” (Miranda and Saunders, 1995, 199).
In 1998, a marking of the 25 year point since Janis’ original work, Esser published a
summary of the major empirical research on Groupthink theory. Esser was critical of the
immediate popularity of Groupthink theory as he felt the level of empirical support to
be, “… less than impressive” (1998, 117). He concluded that the research done,
“ …has not provided unambiguous validation of Groupthink theory…that the heuristic
contribution has been its greatest value… and the results of Groupthink research have
undoubtedly stimulated much thought about group decision making” (Esser, 1998,
118.) Interestingly, Esser was highly enmeshed with his evaluation of the body of
research surrounding Groupthink theory as Esser utilized Groupthink theory, or aspects
of it, in several of his own research initiatives before embarking on the 25th anniversary
research review.
These initiatives include Callaway and Esser (1984) whose work discussed
cohesiveness as a lone contributor to group decision making. Esser and Lindorfer
(1989) used the Groupthink model of preconditions and symptoms in one of several
published or presented case analyses of the Challenger explosion. (see also, Moorhead,
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
7
Ference & Neck 1991, Esser,1995) Their work was a data analysis of testimony, facts,
and opinions and was later described by Esser (1998) as a conservative test of the
model.
Park’s (1990) review of the empirical literature revealed, “… that most studies
reported only partial support for hypotheses derived from the theory. “ Perhaps it is
not surprising to see examples of subtle shifts in language surrounding research
utilizing Groupthink theory after this time. An example is the language present in the
article title of Moorhead, Ference & Neck (1991), “Group decision fiascos continue:
Space shuttle Challenger and a revised Groupthink framework.”
A review of more recent Groupthink literature reveals the wide range of academic
disciplines referring to Groupthink theory in critical assessments of their respective
fields. Hansen (2010) discusses the existence of Groupthink in animal research.
Lemonick (2010) discusses how Groupthink has influenced climate change research.
Badie (2010) as well as Mitchell and Massoud (2009) continue the use of Groupthink
theory in foreign policy case analyses in their respective works, “Groupthink, Iraq, and
the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq” and “Anatomy of Failure:
Bush’s decision–making process and the Iran War.”
Health science researchers are also on the lookout for negative manifestations of
cohesiveness. In his dissertation Snell (2010) states, “The eight symptoms of
Groupthink were tabulated for the nurse and nurse manager groups. Only unanimity
was present at moderate levels in the groups, the other symptoms of Groupthink were
at a low level of incidence. Although two hospitals where the incidence of Groupthink
was low to moderate were studied, the research revealed that the low to moderate
incidence of these factors helped explain the low incidence of Groupthink in the
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
8
organizations. “
Hearkening back to the original arena of Groupthink theory application Baker and
Schneider (2009) presented a conference paper for an audience of political science
researchers evaluating leadership. The social psychological area of research is also still
interested in Groupthink as evidenced in Rovio, Eskolo, Kozub et al’s (2009) article
contribution, “Can high group cohesion be harmful? A case study of a Junior Ice
Hockey Team”. Clearly, ideas surrounding Groupthink originally defined by Janis and
expanded upon by others throughout the last 40 years, are still of significant interest to
researchers in many disciplines.
One of the concepts of Groupthink theory that runs counter intuitive upon first
glance is that of the consideration of the “…potentially detrimental effects of group
cohesiveness” (Janis, 1982, p 4). Janis defined cohesiveness as, “…members’ positive
valuation of the group and their motivation to continue to belong to it.’ (1982, page 4).
This concept in relation to the behaviour of groups was not, however, coined by Janis.
Janis refers to the work of social psychologist “pioneers” (Janis,1982,4) in his own
discussion of the effects of group cohesiveness. He references the work of Cartwright
who concluded, “The greater a group’s cohesiveness the more power it has to bring
about conformity to its norms and to gain acceptance of its goals and assignment to
tasks and roles (as cited in Janis, 1982, p 4).
The group therapist Wilfred Bion is credited with recognition of the point at which
the protection of group cohesion begins to outweigh in importance the decisions being
made. Janis summarized Bion’s findings by stating “… the efficiency of all working
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
9
groups can be adversely affected by the preconscious myths and misconceptions of
their mutually dependent members – that is, by shared basic assumptions that tend to
preserve the group without regard for the work at hand.’ (Janis,1982,p4). Cohesion
ceases to be a positive aspect of group decision making when the cohesiveness of the
group has become the group’s primary goal.
Janis furthers this concept by looking at the behaviours that attempt to control
the level of input possible by group outsiders that may disrupt cohesiveness. He states,
“Among the phenomena that have been intensively investigated in recent years are
two detrimental tendencies arising under certain conditions not yet adequately
understood – the tendency of groups to develop stereotyped images that
dehumanize out-groups against whom they are engaged in competitive struggles
and the tendency for the collective judgements arising out of group discussions to
become polarized, sometimes shifting toward extreme conservatism…”
(Janis,1982,5).
Maintaining homogeneity of group make-up is one way to limit the introduction or
inclusion of information, or moral or ethical viewpoints that question the common
knowledge and value systems held by the group. Janis described the homogeneity
factor as, “Lack of disparity in social background and ideology among the members of a
cohesive group makes it easier for them to concur on whatever proposals are put forth
… (1982, 250). To add to the understanding of the skewing of perspective that
homogeneity of group members can cause, Sunstein (2003) offers this example, “ A
group of people who think that global warming is a serous problem will, after
discussion, tend to think that global warming is a very serious problem” (112).
Maintaining a balance of group cohesion while still allowing diversity of input is
recognized as an important component of group success. Choo (2007) discusses the
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
10
relationship between group diversity and group performance. He states, “If people in a
group do not like each other and spend their time in personal conflict, the group as
a whole will perform badly. But when the underlying tasks are complex and call for a
degree of creativity, dissenting views and a measure of conflict about how to
perform those tasks lead to better outcomes. Among the various types of diversity,
information diversity appears to be the most important variable” (120).
Like Groupthink itself, diversity is a concept that has been studied with applications
to a variety of disciplines. In the context of Groupthink in the workplace, and more
specifically, in the prevention of the forming of the antecedent conditions of Groupthink,
diversity within group is considered a valuable tool. Diversity itself, however, needs to
be further qualified before its implications for organizational use of information and for
decision making can be discussed.
Sunstein (2003) notes that, “Countless educational institutions pursue the goal of
…diversity. Most of America’s large private and public institutions seek a wide range of
views, faculty, and students… Our institutions are committed to diversity, but only to a
certain degree and of a certain kind. …Universities do not take special steps to seek
people who celebrate Apartheid in South Africa, laments the fall of Communism, believe
that the sun goes around the earth, or insist that space aliens have landed…What is
sought is reasonable diversity with respect to background and point of view” (195).
This qualified conceptualization of reasonable diversity, incorporating background and
point of view is the one that mostly aptly applies in this discussion of approaches to
Groupthink prevention in the decision making culture of organizations. This
conceptualization holds congruence with Choo’s findings regarding the importance
information diversity.
Many models of strategic approaches to constructing or maintaining desired levels
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
11
of organizational diversity exist. One model of Groupthink prevention that incorporates
principles of diversity is described as multiple advocacy (t’ Hart, 1998). It is described
as, “ … an attempt to productively import disagreements and conflicting viewpoints…
into the group’s deliberations” (t’ Hart, 1998,319). In the landscape of population
diversity within contemporary North America, it seems an almost ludicrous notion that
diversity of viewpoints would have to be proactively constructed by organizations. Yet,
evidence suggests that despite a diverse population, and a highly accepted view among
Human Resource professionals, government, and business that diversity is inherently
good, there remain barriers to full workforce participation of certain demographic
groups (Cukier, 2007, Executive Summary).
Also present in literature is frustration that these long standing issues of exclusion or
marginalization are still occurring. The language use in Maitland (2010) regarding the
lack of women on top boards of major companies in both the United Kingdom and the
United States is reflective of this frustration. She challenges, “To ensure a steady
stream of women onto boards, we also need more women in senior management… So
will Britain and America follow the example of other European nations?”(68-69).
Women, however, are only one of many recognized underrepresented groups in the
executive level workforce. The member groups within the Canadian workplace context
have long included, “…women, visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, and the
disabled….”(Cukier, 2007). However, “dimensions of diversity” (Shore, Chung-Herrera,
Dean et al, 2009) have expanded even further in recent years to encompass, “age,
race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and culture” (Ibid, abstract).
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
12
In the postmodern era, it is understood that an individual’s worldview is heavily
influenced by culture, ethnicity, gender identity and life experiences. It can be
understood then, that the dimensions of diversity implied by Shore et al bring with them
to an organization the diversity of information and viewpoint noted as influential to
groups by others (see Sunstein 2003, Choo 2007).
As an information professional, it is important to remain current about both the
contemporary models of decision making theories; such as Groupthink, and of ever
expanding contemporary understandings of diversity. As a manager or administrator
within an information organization, a further imperative is to note how diverse or how
lacking in diversity one’s respective organizational workforce is, and to raise it as an
issue of organizational sustainability. To combat the Groupthink antecedent condition of
homogeneity of group members, it is necessary to maintain more than a watchful eye
for the symptoms of Groupthink, but to vigilantly support the enforcement of the
principles, and the pertinent legislation, regarding workplace diversity into both the
hiring practices and the decision making mechanisms of organizations.
In the Canadian legal context, legislation such as Employment Equity Act introduced
in 1985 and amended in 1995, exists that seeks to institutionalize the culture of
workplace diversity. This is augmented with the Canadian Human Rights Act that
further expands the categories of underrepresented populations. The social and the
legal, however, are distinct realms.
In the report sponsored by the Ryerson University Diversity institute submitted to
the Information and Communications Technology Council, the recommendation was
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
13
unequivocal in its recommendation to private sector to follow the lead of public
organizations and banks who have “…lead the way in implementing strategies to
leverage diversity.”(Cukier, 2007) The report goes on to state, “ There is growing
evidence that providing equitable opportunities for under-represented groups …
produces tangible benefits to corporations, although it does require a long-term,
integrated and strategic approach” (Ibid, 2007).
Reflected in the literature from a variety of disciplines over a significant time span,
and anecdotally gleaned from the professed frustration of workplace professionals, it
would appear that diversity of voice at the decision making level of many organizations
is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Without an organization’s systemic
commitment to inclusion of diversity of voices, it does not just happen. Only with a
conscious commitment to diversity can an organization sustainably garner the
recognized value of inclusion of diversity of viewpoint into its decision making processes
recommended by theorists like Janis over 30 years ago, still being recommended by
contemporary theorists from a variety of academic fields, and by professionals working
within organizations.
Works Cited
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
14
Badie, D.(2010). Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift
toward Iraq. Foreign Policy Analysis,6(4). 277-296.
Baker, C, and Schneider, G. (2009). Groupthink: A Rational Choice Explanation and
Experimental Evaluation of Leader-Biased Group Decisions. 5th Conference of the
European Consortium for Political Research, Potsdam (Germany), 10-12 Sep 2009.
Retrieved from http://www.ecprnet.eu/conferences/documents/GC_Potsdam_2009_Programme.pdf
Callaway, M.R. & Esser, J.K. (1984). Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problemsolving procedures on group decision making. Social Behavior and Personality, 12,
157-164.
Choo, C. W. (2007). Social Use of information in organizational groups. In Huizing, A. &
de Vries, E.J. (Ed.), Information management : Setting the scene (). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science.
Cukier, W. (2007). Diversity - the competitive edge : Implications for the ICT labour
market; A report submitted to the information and communications technology
council ( ICTC). Toronto: The Diversity Institute of Ryerson University.
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world.
American Psychologist, 65(3), 216-224.
Eisenhardt,K.M., Kahwajy,J.L., & Brourgeois, L.J. (1997). How management teams can
have a good fight. Harvard Business Review, July- August, 77-.
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
15
Esser, J.K. ( 1995) Groputhink from Pearl Harbour to the Challenger: Failure of decisionmaking groups, Distinguished Faculty Lecture. Beaumont, TX: Lamar University.
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years : A review of Groupthink research.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 73(2/3), 116-.
Esser, J. K and Lindoerfer, JL (1989) Groupthink and the space shuttle challenger
accident: toward a quantititative case analysis. Journal of Behavioural Decision
Making, 2, 167-177.
Giambatista, R. C., & Bhappu, A. D. (2010). Diversity’s harvest: Interactions of diversity
sources and communication technology on creative group performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 116-126.
Hansen, L ( 2010). Animal Research: Groupthink in Both Camps, The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 57(12).
Hart, P. '. (1998). Preventing Groupthink revisited : Evaluating and reforming groups in
government. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 73(2/3), 306-.
Janis, I., L. (1983). Groupthink : Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes
(2nd edition ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lemonick, M. D. (2010), Climate Heretic, Scientific American, 303(5).
Maitland, A. (2010). Don't ask - TELL ! Conference Board Review, 47(5), 68-.
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
16
McCauley, C. (1989). The nature of social influence in Groupthink ; compliance and
internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 250-.
Miranda, S.M., and Saunders, C. (1995). Group support systems: An organization
development intervention to combat Groupthink. Public Administration Quarterly,
Summer, 193-.
Mitchell, D. and Massoud, T.G. ( 2009 ) Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s decision making
process and the Iraq War. Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(3),265-286.
Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. (2010). An upside to bicultural identity conflict: Resisting
Groupthink in cultural ingroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6),
1114-1117.
Moorhead, G, Ference R& Neck, CP, (1991). Group decision fiascos continue: Space
shuttle Challenger and a revised Groupthink framework. Human Relations. 44.
Moorhead,G., Neck,C.P., & West, M.S. (1998). The tendency toward defective decision
making within self-managing teams : The relevance of Groupthink for the 21st
century. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 73(2/3), 327-.
Phillips, K. W., Kim-Jun, S. Y., & Shim, S. (2011). The value of diversity in
organizations: A social psychological perspective. In D. De Cremer, R. van Dick & J.
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
17
K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology and organizations (pp. 253-271). New York,
NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Roberge, M., & van Dick, R. (2010). Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and
how does diversity increase group performance? Human Resource Management
Review, 20(4), 295-308.
Rovio, E; Eskola, J; Kozub, SA ; Duda, JL; Lintunen, T (2009). Can high group
cohesion be harmful? A Case Study of a Junior Ice Hockey Team, Small Group
Research, 40(4),421-435.
Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D. I., Randel, A.
E., et al. (2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we
going? Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 117-133.
Snell, M. ( 2010).Factors that increase the incidence of Groupthink in hospitals: The
perception of nurses and managers, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(11A), 4363.
Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University
Press.
Diversity vs. Groupthink in organizational decision making
18