Impacts of Groupthink on Decision Making - Essay Example

It heeds little attention to distinctive ideas and experts’ advice. At this juncture, the role of a project manager is crucial in leading the group to yield the best outcome. This paper will discuss the major impacts of groupthink on decision-making and five major tactics that a project manager can put forth to evade this threat.

Illusion of invulnerability

As mentioned in the introduction, groups that experience groupthink presumably seek little advice from external sources or experts. It normally happens due to their illusion of infallibility or stereotypical nature. To avoid these threats, it is advisable to ‘invite different perspectives’ into the decision-making process (Thompson, 2006, 177). The author also points out that the absence of different perspectives has been the major cause of several corporate or governmental failures in history (Thompson).  

Getting intimidated

The bigger the team the higher the chance to be vulnerable to groupthink. Therefore, the project manager should frequently monitor the size of the team so that it would ensure the spontaneous participation of all members. In addition, to get rid of members’ fear, the ‘risk technique’ could be implemented. As Thompson describes this technique involves several methods; firstly, members will discuss the risks associated with taking a particular decision and further move to propose strategies to meet that possible challenge. Another tactic is to appoint ‘devil advocates to invoke the real opinion of the group members in a way that would avert members' fear (Thompson).

Pressure of uniformity

This is another identified symptom of groupthink. In a group that gives higher importance to uniformity, diversity of opinion is less expected. Subsequently, members tend to suppress their perspectives with the intent to preserve group cohesion. It will deteriorate the quality of the decision as the group is less likely to consider various dimensions of the issue addressed. A leader who would stand impartial might be apt to this situation. In addition, the decision can be delayed by keeping the meeting for another occasion. As per this tactic, “teams may be given guidelines that emphasize continued solicitations of solutions, protection of individuals from criticism, keeping the discussion problem-centered, and listing all solutions before evaluating them” (Maier, 1952 cited in Thompson, 2006, p. 176-77).

Over-dependence on the leader

Members of a group sometimes tend to rely on the abilities of its leader. This over-dependence later gives way to their frustration as the leader would not meet the expected levels of performance in the overall task. This is also one of the negative outcomes of groupthink which can be avoided only by promoting the full-fledged efforts of every member. To ensure active participation, the manager should confirm the size and structure of the group while assigning tasks. Once the group is identified for its passive response to the assigned task, it can be asked for finding “a second solution or decision recommendation as an alternative to their first choices” (Thompson, 2006, p. 179). The process can be intensified further by using time pressure on members to decide by solving the problems assigned to each member.  This tactic would certainly invoke the attention of every member.

Absence of a contingency plan

A team affected by groupthink will not have a strategy to vie with the contingency of any sort. As Spangle and Isenhart (2003, p. 289) point out, disasters like the Challenger space shuttle or the Hubble telescope are some examples of the harmful consequences of groupthink. It happens as the members find themselves less responsible for decision-making other than relying on the unanimity of the group. To improve responsibility, managers can initiate a face-saving mechanism because as Thompson (2006) believes, small teams with organizational support and expectation are more likely to yield good results as they are concerned about failure or poor performance (p. 176). Therefore, the face-saving situation will force members to heed their genuine effort in decision-making processes.

Conclusion

Groupthink is the essential feature of every stereotypical system in which individuals exert force upon each other to think and respond the same way. As it does not encourage different thinking, the decisions made would be comparatively poor in quality or disastrous. There are several techniques that a manager can apply to avoid the threat of groupthink. Among them, inviting different perspectives, risk techniques, delayed decisions, appointing a devil’s advocate, and face-saving techniques are important. However, which of the above techniques is apt to the context depends on the project manager’s discretion.