Theoretical Issues of Groupthink - Term Paper Example

Term Paper Assignment Groupthink Groupthink This paper includes some theoretical issues due to the question of groupthink. Also we can find summarized researches and credible literature. The main features, basic notions and symptoms of groupthink are existed in the paper. Moreover, resent drawbacks and defects of this notion are critically summarized and listed. All this information reinforced and supported by the examples from the world history. Study of literature and research works leads to the hypothesis that experience of groupthink is not successful and can even cause big trouble with big deprivations. Still, it becomes evident that this notion widely spread and it pretended to be an inalienable part of society. Groups are conceiving individuals who pretended to have analogical intentions or purpose. Number of participants in group can consist of from a few individuals to million thousands people (Wilcox, 2010). Human creatures are associated by its interests, common views, kind of occupation, field of investigation or anything else. These unities provide social solidarity continuum and self-identification in community group. Each person in a group has its own role which follows his aim and character. Actually it depends from the person itself and from features of his character. A person behaves due to his socioemotional role in the group. Wilcox (2010) investigates some of these roles and its functions. For example, Initiator/Contributor provides new ideas, possible solutions to a problem. At the same time Follower accepts ideas afforded by others. The one who regulates conflicts among the members of a group called Harmoniser. Forsyth (1990) finds names for every participant of the group who may ever be existed. There are no doubts that in every group leaders and followers are present. Moreover, they also changed due to the circumstances, time modifications and views reversal. A person selects how to present himself in front of group. It depends from his emotional status and inner motivation. We regard group as a composition of individuals. The solutions which group is issued considered being collectivity of personal preferences. Still, the group environment plays a huge role on individual assortments (Wilcox, 2010). Groupthink considered to a phenomenon occurs while a strong, common, management decisions need to be initiated. It relates to critical and objective realization of resolves which should be made by every member of group what Wilcox (2010) mentioned. Still, these decisions are not always proper and right. There are some bright examples in the world history when such resolutions lead to destruction and demolition. The main point which is necessary for groupthink is cohesiveness. This is ability to think and support actions by logic and consistency. Janis (1982) provided three specification of groupthink. They are group seclusion, the deficit of hereditary equitable leadership and lack of rules demanding ordinate process. Later he added one more factor to this list. That is lack of divergence in social ideology. These agents influenced group thinking and causes problems in the field of decisions which the group admits. Moreover, there are eight peculiar indications or symptoms are existed in the groupthink field of investigations. These features are the well analyzed exploration of experience through the history. Tetlock, Peterson, McGuire, Chang and Field (1992) formulated these symptoms due to the defections which happened in the world politics mostly. The first one considered to be a deception of invulnerability. This means that imparted illusion are existed and encourages people to admit hazard decisions by evoking superfluous optimism. Credence in indefeasible moral model of the group seems to be the second point under consideration. This is a shared belief which has appealed participants to neglect moral and ethnic outcomes while making decisions. The third one is mutual sapience. This is group endeavors to reduce warnings or other facts that may influence their speculations for accomplishing their solutions. The next indication is template thinking of out-groups. This is a tendency to regard deprecated group as a wrong guarantee authenticity and practice to conduct negotiations. Moreover, this leads contradictory efforts with opposite group, what is rather foolish, and what result to debacle of their own conceives. The fifth point is self-censorship. This can be explained as a recede from inarguable group compliance speculating to propensity of each member of the group for the sake of detraction the significance of hesitations and counters within the group. The next is deceit of unanimity which pretended to be an impart illusion by members of the group pertaining to assertions submitting general inspection. The seventh factor is the unmitigated oppression of dissenters. This means the proper attack to those who act against the strong arguments or any group stereotypes or commitments. The last but not the least is self-determined security of mind. This is a defense of a group from inauspicious information that may destroy its placidity about the potency and morality of its resolves. What is more Janis (1982) investigates some major disturbances in decision-making process which is explored through the history proceedings which is accompanied by some fails. These are: Defective inspection of assortments which envisages to limiting the dispute to a small number of alternatives without an oversight of all adoption which is possible. Imperfect survey of aspirations limits the pleading to few objectives without a comprising of all potential objectives. Crash of analyzing the gamble of choice which is made pretended to re-evaluate the taken decision due to its defect and drawbacks. Failure of re-evaluated primary abandoned alternatives which means that renounce options considered to be ignored. Insufficient information pursuit convinces that specific fields of information pretended to be not enough. Preferential displacement in machining notability at hand presupposes that members of group ignore the evidences which are contradicting to their views and provide a wide usage of information which supports their dogmas. Failure in working out the fortuity of conceptions means that participants of the group do not think about what will be the reaction of other groups. Although these models do not ensure the solid description about the inner relations within the group, they just recommend a proper assume how to precipitate accordance menace to group-making decisions. History documented us with a number of majestic examples of group thinking which is not always successful and we can warn against wrong decisions by these models. For instance, the Arab Spring is well known as a series of street protests which has dialed a widespread character. All this protests led to revolution and armed conflicts inside of the country with a usage of force and weapon. This considered being a bright example of groupthink as it began with one vivid accident which encouraged people to operate. The impulse to the revolution gave Tunisian pitcher Mohammed Bouazizi who committed self-immolation exactly in the street in protest against the police tyranny who confiscated all his goods. People started cooperating together for the better future. They grouped together for the one goal but it is definitely clear that not everyone is able to understand for what they are fighting. Arabians just followed some leaders to gain some aim. They shake off the post of the president but they do not consider all implications and damage what was made to countries and population. The other example is Iraq war. It started because a big number of Americans believed in affiliation of mass destruction weapons in Iraq. However, later it was found out that this fact was not relevant and there was a huge variety of destroyable weapons. Still, people had obstacles in comprehending of their wrong adjustment to the situation. After declaring their attitude they detected ways to precede their point of view as a proper one (Sanderson, 2010). All in all groupthink is considered to be a dangerous symptom of corporate culture. It eliminates inherent from humans nature differentiating of views and opinions, thereby narrowing the decision-making horizon. This group of people, as a result, does not notice a significant range of motion ways to success. This group of people deprives choice to themselves and critical analysis of alternatives. Therefore, it is important to understand all significance of decision-making process while trying to reflect your own individuality within a group. Reference List: Forsyth, D.R. (1990). Group Dynamics Pacific Glove. CA: Brooke/Cole Publishing Co. Hogg, M. A., Vaughan, Gr. M. (2008). Social Psychology. 5th ed., UK: Pearson Education Limited. Janis, I. L.(1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., McGuire, C., Chang, C., and Field, P. (1992). Assessing Political Group Dynamics: A test of groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63(3), 403-425. Sanderson, C. A. (2010). Social Psychology. USA: John Willey and Sons Inc. Wilcox, Cl. (2010). Groupthink: An Impediment to Success. USA: Xlibris Corporation. Read More