Maybe it was a business or academic committee, a social group, a church board, a government agency.
Groupthink prevents these benefits due to structural faults and provocative situational context Groupthink prevention methods will produce better decisions An illusion of well-being is presumed to be inherently dysfunctional. Group pressures towards consensus lead to concurrence-seeking tendencies.
It has been thought that groups with the strong ability to work together will be able to solve dilemmas in a quicker and more efficient fashion than an individual. Groups have a greater amount of resources which lead them to be able to store and retrieve information more readily and come up with more alternative solutions to a problem.
There was a recognized downside to group problem solving in that it takes groups more time to come to a decision and requires that people make compromises with each other.
It is, therefore, considered by many to be important to combat the effects of groupthink.
He devised ways of preventing groupthink: This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts. Leaders should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
Leaders should absent themselves from many of the group meetings to avoid excessively influencing the outcome. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.
All effective alternatives should be examined. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
This should be a different person for each meeting. By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis using "vigilant appraisal. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, to partially break the group cohesion.
Kennedy was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Empirical findings and meta-analysis[ edit ] Testing groupthink in a laboratory is difficult because synthetic settings remove groups from real social situations, which ultimately changes the variables conducive or inhibitive to groupthink.
These factors range from causal to effectual and focus on group and situational aspects. According to Park, a study by Huseman and Drive indicates groupthink occurs in both small and large decision-making groups within businesses.
Manz and Sims conducted a study showing that autonomous work groups are susceptible to groupthink symptoms in the same manner as decisions making groups within businesses. The same study indicates that level of group cohesiveness is insignificant in predicting groupthink occurrence.
If highly dominant members are considered equivalent to leaders with high power motivation, the results of Callaway, Marriott, and Esser contradict the results of Fodor and Smith. A study by Leana indicates the interaction between level of group cohesion and leadership style is completely insignificant in predicting groupthink.
Park summarizes a study by McCauley in which structural conditions of the group were found to predict groupthink while situational conditions did not.
The situational conditions included group cohesion. Overall, studies on groupthink have largely focused on the factors antecedents that predict groupthink. Some studies indicate group cohesion and leadership style to be powerfully predictive of groupthink, while other studies indicate the insignificance of these factors.
Group homogeneity and group insulation are generally supported as factors predictive of groupthink.
"Groupthink" is a dynamic wherein members of a team Irving Janis began exploring the concept of Groupthink by researching the chain of events involved in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Groupthink then focuses on the negative effects of erroneous group decisions. Two major examples of groupthink are reexamined and compared: the disastrous Bay of Pigs decision by the elite advisory group of President Kennedy, and the advisory groups of President Nixon, which led to the Watergate disaster and at unsuccessful attempts to cover up. the disastrous Bay of Pigs decision by the elite advisory group of President Kennedy, and the advisory groups of President Nixon, laugh dutifully, along with the others, but later think, “Wait a minute. Considering the terrain Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, .
Case studies[ edit ] Politics and military[ edit ] Groupthink can have a strong hold on political decisions and military operations, which may result in enormous wastage of human and material resources.
Highly qualified and experienced politicians and military commanders sometimes make very poor decisions when in a suboptimal group setting.
Scholars such as Janis and Raven attribute political and military fiascoes, such as the Bay of Pigs Invasionthe Vietnam Warand the Watergate scandalto the effect of groupthink. William Fulbrightattempted to present their objections to the plan, the Kennedy team as a whole ignored these objections and kept believing in the morality of their plan.
In the latter crisis, essentially the same political leaders were involved in decision-making, but this time they learned from their previous mistake of seriously under-rating their opponents. A number of factors such as shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the lack of precaution taken by U.
Navy officers based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese messages and they discovered that Japan was arming itself for an offensive attack somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Washington took action by warning officers stationed at Pearl Harborbut their warning was not taken seriously.
They assumed that the Empire of Japan was taking measures in the event that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories were usurped. Navy and Army in Pearl Harbor also shared rationalizations about why an attack was unlikely. Some of them included: For example, on November 7, the day before the election, The New York Times opined that Clinton then had "a consistent and clear advantage in states worth at least electoral votes.In , Yale psychologist Irving Janis began exploring the concept of Groupthink by researching the chain of events involved in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of , where U.S.-trained and equipped soldiers attempted to .
Group Think: The Bay of Pigs Invasion Background Background Continued Bay of Pigs Map Why it is considered Group Think Why it was considered Group Think Fidel Castro and JFK Thank You For Watching March of , Dwight Eisenhower approved a document with the objective to overthrow the Cuban government.
JFK’s Legacy and Groupthink. This article looks at two specific examples: the Bay of Pigs invasion, an attempt to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro that became a fiasco, and the Cuban missile crisis that saw the world come perilously close to nuclear war.
With the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy made a decision and the people around him supported it despite their own concerns.
Irving L. Janis coined the term "Groupthink," and published his research in the book, " Groupthink.". "Groupthink" is a dynamic wherein members of a team Irving Janis began exploring the concept of Groupthink by researching the chain of events involved in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.
group think bay of pigs - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Search Search.