How Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challenger

1. REVISED GROUPTHINK FRAMEWORK
Presented by Group 10
Group Discussion
Fiasco: Space Shuttle
Challenger

2. WHAT IS GROUP THINK?
A MODE OF THINKING THAT PEOPLE ENGAGE IN WHEN
THEY ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN A COHESIVE IN-GROUP
WHEN ALL THINK ALIKE, THEN NO ONE IS THINKING
~WALTER LIPPMAN

3. THE
CHALLENGER
DISASTER
In 1982, President Ronald Reagan declared that shuttle system “fully
operational”
Ready for commercial and military goals NASA to enter business of
launching satellites
Increase pressure on NASA management to launch certain number of
flights per year and launch them on time (714 flights between 1978-1990)
Morton Thiokol contractor for solid rocket motors for NASA designed
faulty seal design of the joint on the solid rocket motor
The faulty design has been objected since October 1977

4. On the D-1 of the launch the weather wasn’t as warm as expected
The O-ring seal never been tested in the weather of the launch
More than 30 people know this issue, but not the top management of NASA
Thiokol representative recommend NASA to delay the launch until weather
reaches 53 degree Fahrenheit
NASA project manager push Thiokol to change their recommendation

5. SYMPTOMS OF GROUP THINK
Over optimistic and willing to take extreme risks
NASA is very proud because all their employees are rocket
scientists and ex-military
O-ring seals identified as important part of the shuttle but
they ignore the fact that there are issues with the design
Group members discount warnings
NASA asked Thiokol to change their objection to proceed
with launching
Thiokol Managers disregard the engineers
INVULNERABILITY
RATIONALIZATION

6. SYMPTOMS OF GROUP THINK
Group members develop unquestioned belief in the group’s
inherent morality
NASA needs to fulfill target so they ignore safety
Causing 7 crews died
Stereotyped views of opposition or group members
Thiokol managers who afraid that they will lose NASA if
they keep giving objection on the shuttle launches
MORALITY
STEREOTYPING

7. SYMPTOMS OF GROUP THINK
Group members apply direct pressure on any member who
expresses strong arguments against the group
NASA pressure Thiokol representative to change their
objection to launch the shuttle
Group members censor themselves from any
deviations from the apparent group consensus
Some of the Thiokol managers who understand the
engineers concern but decided to stay silent and made
decision to launch disregarding the concern
PRESSURE
SELF-CENSORSHIP

8. SYMPTOMS OF GROUP THINK
Group members perceive a shared illusion of unanimity
concerning judgments conforming to the majority view
Some group members appoint themselves to protect the
group from adverse information that might shatter their
shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality
of their decision
NASA project manager allowed Thiokol to made internal
meeting regarding their objection to proceeds with the
launch
UNANIMITY
MIND GUARDS

9. DECISION MAKING DEFECTS
FEW ALTERNATIVES
The group only consider the few
alternatives, often only two. The
flight readiness had a launch/no-
launch decision to make
NO RE-EXAMINATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
Top NASA officials spent time
defending & straightening their
position.
REJECTING EXPERT
OPINION
NASA didn't seek out others
experts who might have better
expertise in this area
REJECTING -VE
INFORMATION
MTI representatives repeatedly
trying to point out errors while
NASA is justifying the launch
Intrepid Hiking Tours Co. | 2020
NO
CONTIGENCY
PLANS
In the Rogers
commission report
there are no
mention of possible
consequences of
an incorrect
decision

10. Revised Group-think framework
GROUP
CHARACTERISTICS
LEADERSHIP
STYLES
DECISION MAKING
DEFECTS
TIME
DECISION
OUTCOMES
GROUTHINK
SYMPTOMS

11. CRITICAL
EVALUATOR
The leader of a policy-
forming group should
assign the role of
critical evaluator to
each member, encouraging
the group to give
high priority to airing
objections and doubts
How to Avoid Group Think?
ROUTINE FOLLOW
UP
The organization should
routinely follow the
administrative and
evaluation groups to work in
the same policy question.
DELIBERATION
DISCUSSION
Each member of the policy-
making group should
periodically
discuss the group’s
deliberations with trusted
associates in her
own unit of organization and
report their transactions
back to the
group.
OUTSIDE
EXPERTS
One or more outside experts
or qualified colleagues
within the
organization who are not
core members of the policy-
making
group should be invited
to each meeting.
Also check policy
alternatives

12. SHRANIK JAIN 2017SMN6668
ASHISH PANDEY 2017SMN6535
KARTHIK A 2017SMT6636
THANK YOU
SHIVAM BAWA 2017SMN6541
ASHISH MAHALA 2017SMT6664
DEEPALI SINGH PARMAR 2017SMN6550
SHREYA WADHWA 2017SMN76555