Groupthink occurs when groups value unanimity over critical evaluation, leading members to avoid dissent and overlook risks. This can result in defective decision-making and unethical behavior. Examples include Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, escalation of the Vietnam War, and the Watergate cover-up. Symptoms include illusion of invulnerability, pressure on dissenters, and failure to consider alternatives. Organizations can reduce groupthink through techniques like assigning devil's advocates and establishing norms of open critique.

1. Groupthink and EthicsGroupthink and Ethics

2. GroupthinkGroupthink
► Groupthink is a mode of thinking that peopleGroupthink is a mode of thinking that people
engage in when they are deeply involved inengage in when they are deeply involved in
cohesive in-groupcohesive in-group
► Member’s strive for unanimity that overrides theirMember’s strive for unanimity that overrides their
motivation to appraise alternative courses ofmotivation to appraise alternative courses of
actionaction
► During groupthink small groups develop sharedDuring groupthink small groups develop shared
illusions and related norms that interfere withillusions and related norms that interfere with
critical thinking and reality testingcritical thinking and reality testing

3. Historic Examples of GroupthinkHistoric Examples of Groupthink
► Neville Chamberlain’s inner circle and theNeville Chamberlain’s inner circle and the
supported policy of appeasement of Hitler in 1937supported policy of appeasement of Hitler in 1937
and 1938and 1938
► President Truman’s advisory group and thePresident Truman’s advisory group and the
escalation of war in North Koreaescalation of war in North Korea
► President Kennedy’s inner circle and thePresident Kennedy’s inner circle and the
supported decision to launch Bay of Pigs invasionsupported decision to launch Bay of Pigs invasion
in Cubain Cuba
► President Johnson’s close advisors and thePresident Johnson’s close advisors and the
decision to escalate the Vietnam Wardecision to escalate the Vietnam War

4. Historic Examples of GroupthinkHistoric Examples of Groupthink
► Historic fiascos can be tracedHistoric fiascos can be traced
back to defective policy byback to defective policy by
leaders who received socialleaders who received social
support from their in groupsupport from their in group
advisorsadvisors
► Groupthink dominated groupsGroupthink dominated groups
were characterized by strongwere characterized by strong
pressures toward uniformity,pressures toward uniformity,
which inclined their members towhich inclined their members to
avoid raising controversialavoid raising controversial
issues, questioning weakissues, questioning weak
arguments, or calling a halt toarguments, or calling a halt to
soft-headed thinkingsoft-headed thinking

5. Groupthink: Precursor to UnethicalGroupthink: Precursor to Unethical
BehaviorBehavior
► What guides the behavior of managers andWhat guides the behavior of managers and
employees as they cope with ethicalemployees as they cope with ethical
dilemmas?dilemmas?
 Individual characteristics (such as locus ofIndividual characteristics (such as locus of
control)control)
 Situational forces (such as an organization’sSituational forces (such as an organization’s
rewards and punishments and its culture)rewards and punishments and its culture)
► Individuals’ standards of right and wrong areIndividuals’ standards of right and wrong are
not the sole determinant of their decisionsnot the sole determinant of their decisions

6. Groupthink: Precursor to UnethicalGroupthink: Precursor to Unethical
BehaviorBehavior
► Under stress, members of the group develop aUnder stress, members of the group develop a
number of cognitive defenses that result in anumber of cognitive defenses that result in a
collective pattern of avoidance that are antecedentscollective pattern of avoidance that are antecedents
of groupthink:of groupthink:
1.1. Misjudging relevant warningsMisjudging relevant warnings
2.2. Inventing new arguments to support a chosenInventing new arguments to support a chosen
policypolicy
3.3. Failing to explore ominous implications ofFailing to explore ominous implications of
ambiguous eventsambiguous events
4.4. Forgetting information that would enable aForgetting information that would enable a
challenging event to be interpreted correctlychallenging event to be interpreted correctly
5.5. Misperceiving signs of the onset of actual dangerMisperceiving signs of the onset of actual danger

7. Symptoms of GroupthinkSymptoms of Groupthink
► Symptoms of GroupthinkSymptoms of Groupthink
1.1. Illusion of invulnerabilityIllusion of invulnerability
2.2. Collective rationalizationCollective rationalization
3.3. Belief in inherent morality of the groupBelief in inherent morality of the group
4.4. Stereotypes of out-groupsStereotypes of out-groups
5.5. Direct pressure on dissentersDirect pressure on dissenters
6.6. Self-censorshipSelf-censorship
7.7. Illusion of unanimityIllusion of unanimity
8.8. Self-appointed mind guardsSelf-appointed mind guards

8. Symptoms of GroupthinkSymptoms of Groupthink
► Evidence of most of theEvidence of most of the
symptoms of a groupsymptoms of a group
caught in groupthinkcaught in groupthink
appeared in the uneditedappeared in the unedited
transcripts of thetranscripts of the
deliberations of thosedeliberations of those
involved in the Watergateinvolved in the Watergate
cover-upcover-up
► Also shows up inAlso shows up in
discrimination violations,discrimination violations,
horizontal or vertical price-horizontal or vertical price-
fixing, and internationalfixing, and international
securities fraudsecurities fraud

9. Symptoms of defective decisionSymptoms of defective decision
makingmaking
► Symptoms of groupthink will inevitably lead toSymptoms of groupthink will inevitably lead to
defective decision making such as:defective decision making such as:
1.1. Incomplete survey of alternativesIncomplete survey of alternatives
2.2. Incomplete survey of objectivesIncomplete survey of objectives
3.3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choiceFailure to examine risks of preferred choice
4.4. Poor information searchPoor information search
5.5. Selective bias in processing information at handSelective bias in processing information at hand
6.6. Failure to reappraise alternativesFailure to reappraise alternatives
7.7. Failure to work out contingency plansFailure to work out contingency plans
► One particular incentive looms large in defectiveOne particular incentive looms large in defective
decision making: the approval or disapproval ofdecision making: the approval or disapproval of
his or her fellow group members and their leaderhis or her fellow group members and their leader

10. Devil’s Advocate and DialecticDevil’s Advocate and Dialectic
MethodsMethods
► The devil’s advocate is assigned to identifyThe devil’s advocate is assigned to identify
potential pitfalls or unethical behavior with apotential pitfalls or unethical behavior with a
proposed course of actionproposed course of action
► Irving Janis recommends that everyone in theIrving Janis recommends that everyone in the
group assume the role of a devil’s advocate andgroup assume the role of a devil’s advocate and
present a critique of the proposed course of actionpresent a critique of the proposed course of action
► Conflict generated by the devil’s advocate mayConflict generated by the devil’s advocate may
cause groups to avoid false assumptions andcause groups to avoid false assumptions and
closely adhere to guideline for ethical analysis inclosely adhere to guideline for ethical analysis in
decisionsdecisions

11. Devil’s Advocate and DialecticDevil’s Advocate and Dialectic
MethodsMethods
► The dialectic method can program conflict into aThe dialectic method can program conflict into a
group’s decisions while offsetting potentiallygroup’s decisions while offsetting potentially
unethical behaviorunethical behavior
► False or misleading assumptions becomeFalse or misleading assumptions become
apparent and can head off ethical decisions thatapparent and can head off ethical decisions that
are based on these poor assumptionsare based on these poor assumptions
► Programming conflict into the group decision-Programming conflict into the group decision-
making process allows dissent and can decreasemaking process allows dissent and can decrease
the likelihood of groupthink and unethical behaviorthe likelihood of groupthink and unethical behavior

12. ConclusionConclusion
► Organizations committed to ethical behavior in theirOrganizations committed to ethical behavior in their
organizations must work toward the reduction andorganizations must work toward the reduction and
prevention of groupthinkprevention of groupthink
► Organizations can take a number of steps such as:Organizations can take a number of steps such as:
►Develop strong norms of critical appraisalDevelop strong norms of critical appraisal
►Group leaders can abstain from pushing their ownGroup leaders can abstain from pushing their own
views and using their influenceviews and using their influence
►Groups can attempt to avoid isolation by involvingGroups can attempt to avoid isolation by involving
more than one group in the decisions makingmore than one group in the decisions making
processprocess
► Ethical behavior foundations are first established when anEthical behavior foundations are first established when an
organization commits itself to success that results fromorganization commits itself to success that results from
ethical behavior of its membersethical behavior of its members