How the evolution of our brains may facilitate the evolution of a company's culture. P4: Groupthink
The past few newsletters have discussed the individual processes of cognitive bias and top-down processing, the psychological phenomena linked to satisfactory neural processes that develop positive feedback loops. Last week, we discussed how these individual processes contribute to and facilitate Group Dynamics, as most people may prioritise group agreement through an innate drive for safety. This week's final newsletter in this series discusses what happens when these processes and tendencies go into overdrive and Groupthink develops.
What is Groupthink?
Groupthink is 'a strong concurrence-seeking tendency that interferes with effective group decision making. Symptoms include apparent unanimity, illusions of invulnerability and moral correctness, biased perceptions of the outgroup, interpersonal pressure, self-censorship, and non-optimal decision-making strategies. Causes are thought to include group cohesion and isolation, poor leadership, and the stress involved in making decisions.' - American Psychological Association.
Groupthink is a psyche-driven occurrence within groups of people where the desire for harmony and cohesion in a group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. Individuals avoid offering differing opinions, prioritise consensus, and often ignore alternative viewpoints contributed by others. Irving L. Janis, a social psychologist, first introduced the concept, describing it as "a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures."
Symptoms of Groupthink
Janis has documented eight symptoms of Groupthink:
The illusion of invulnerability - Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Collective rationalisation - Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and, therefore, ignore their decisions' ethical or moral consequences.
Stereotyped views of outgroups – Negative views of the "enemy" make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are pressured not to express arguments against the group's views.
Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
Self-appointed 'mindguards' – Members protect the group and the leader from information problematic or contradictory to the group's cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
The emergence of 'Groupthink' can be an organic development of the ways in which a company needs to operate. If we remember, organisations are (in most cases) for-profit and operate through people driving that profit. In that case, it is understandably easier to have the majority of those people happy to go with the flow, stay in keeping with the status quo, etc. The issues only occur when said 'status quo' may only benefit a small cohort or is a function of toxicity. In general, a majority cohesive environment contributes to the success of an organisation; even at most management levels, success is achieved through the correct implementation of pre-designed processes. People who may have taken the move from an engineering or dev. role into management may be familiar with the initial creativity withdrawel that accompanies the move.
Striking a balance where you bring an organisation to a place where people are content and happy with a status quo, and the line where that status quo gets taken advantage of by a small minority is a fine art in avoiding that line being crossed. By the time the line may have been crossed, it's usually a large task to tackle.
Ironically, 'Critical Thinking' is one of the most coveted skills across corporate industries, and it has been for years. Critical Thinking is also the enemy of Groupthink. If companies are listing Critical Thinking in skills lists in role posts but they have a Groupthink culture
It's a catch twenty-two; companies, where Groupthink has developed, may be more desperate for hiring critical thinkers, but within the smaller confines of the companies operating, this skill may not be favoured. These situations can lead to frustrated employees, possibly high turnover, and leadership that may genuinely be ignorant of what is happening.
If Groupthink describes a situation where the majority of people agree with leadership and facilitate and drive leadership's thinking, then why would leadership be aware of this? It's highly likely that anyone or any group in this position just recognises cohesive validation. This is not to diminish responsibility—leadership is entirely responsible, but in order to manage or change something, it needs to be understood first.
Groupthink in action
Groupthink has been credited with the downfall of many corporate cultures, with one of the most famous examples being Enron. The downfall of the American Energy conglomerate following the discovery of the accounting fraud is brilliantly discussed in a 2003 case study by researcher Marleen O'Connor. O'Connor explored how Groupthink contributed to the Director's toxic corporate culture at Enron, where smart individuals can contribute even to illegal activities by succumbing to their own biases. The study paints a picture of how pressure for conformity and illusions of invulnerability led to unethical decision-making and, ultimately, the company's downfall.
In organisational settings, aside from the inner organic workings of our minds, additional external drivers can also facilitate Groupthink. Employees rely on their jobs to support families and pay bills, making them less likely to challenge the status quo. Additional desires for career advancement can lead individuals to align with group norms to be viewed favourably by management. People go to work to make a living, not to stand up for what's right or go against the grain because of moral duty. The fear of losing a job or missing out on promotions often outweighs the desire to challenge Groupthink. Certain personalities can also exacerbate Groupthink. Individuals adept at building positive relationships with management may behave differently towards their peers. Management might not recognise this, believing the individual is genuinely nice, while others experience a different side of the person. This can create an environment where Groupthink thrives, as divergent voices are silenced.
The Balcony Position in Leadership in Deterring Groupthink
While the purpose of this newsletter is to discuss Groupthink, its evolution and the detrimental effects following its development rather than how to effectively manage or prevent it from occurring altogether, it is worth noting that effective leaders can mitigate Groupthink by adopting the "Balcony Position" – a concept where leaders step back to view the bigger picture. This perspective allows them to analyse situations and encourage diverse viewpoints within the team critically. By fostering an environment where creative and different contributions are valued, leaders can prevent the onset of Groupthink. The Balcony Position is from Heifetz and Linsky's work on Adaptive Leadership. It describes an open-minded, analytical thinking perspective approach to leadership.
Conclusion
Groupthink can profoundly impact an organisation's culture, stifling innovation and leading to poor decision-making. Understanding the underlying social dynamics, cognitive biases, and individual drivers facilitating Groupthink is crucial for leaders and team members. By promoting open dialogue, valuing dissent, and adopting a broader perspective, organisations can create a more dynamic and resilient culture capable of making well-rounded and effective decisions.