The problem with most of these kinds of analyses of groupthink, is that everything they say is a characteristic of groupthink, is also characteristic of achieving consensus of any sort. We don't call it self-censorship unless it turns out badly, because the absolute lack of self-censorship is cacophony where nothing is ever decided. "Belief in inherent morality of the group", is not what we call it when it turns out that, say, those in favor of abolitionism _were_ in the right. We only call it that when it turns out to be false.<p>I've seen cases where you actually lack all of the things listed here, and they are groups which are never able to agree on a course of action, or cooperate to achieve anything. You call it either "agreement" or "groupthink" depending on whether it turns out to be good or not.<p>Which means, that a list of "symptoms" like this will not help you to discover in advance whether the group in question has a problem, which is what is actually needed. It's something that can give you the comforting illusion of being able to detect groupthink ("it won't happen to me"), without in fact helping you actually notice when the group you're part of is heading off in the wrong direction.
Criticisms of groupthink and other anti-patterns are funny to me because they presume that if people only had access to these valuable insights they would change. Organizational anti-patterns are rarely broken, they work for someone, and someone's salary depends on sustaining that dissonance.<p>The work in large organizations is to achieve outcomes within the broken and inconsistent rules of their internal logic, so as to preserve the integrity of them, and not the outcomes themselves. The essence of being a geek, nerd, or technologist is to focus on the outcomes and problem solving to achieve them, whereas the essence of being typical is to be a working part of the system to sustain it, independent of it's outcomes.<p>Warren Buffett said, "I try to invest in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will."<p>To me, the point of a startup is to defect from these dissonance machines and create something people actually want. Viewed this way, a startup is not a business. It's like an anti-business that gets absorbed by a business and releases stored potential revenue in the collision.<p>Groupthink might be more of a sign than a problem. It's possible that it is a sign of the growth stage of a business and whether it's ready to absorb something, or just be hollowed out in some long term private equity cost optimization hell.
I know groupthink has a negative connotation and can be damaging but on the other hand it seems necessary to have some kind of groupthink in order to align an organization on a goal. Especially in areas where there is not a clear cut decision what’s best you have to form a group opinion that assumes certain things. For example in software dev at some point you have to decide on an architecture and live with it even if there are alternatives that are as good. People who constantly reopen that question are not really helpful at some point. The danger is probably for people to stick to that decision for too long even after weaknesses start showing up. But I think especially for a large organization it’s hard to find the point when it’s time to change course.<p>I guess all I want to say is that damaging groupthink is easy to spot in hindsight but that well functioning organizations also rely on groupthink. And that it’s quite hard to distinguish between positive and necessary groupthink and negative groupthink.
It might be interesting to list some contraindications as well. What aspects of group dynamics work against groupthink, or are signs of its absence?<p>I suspect all of them could be view as anti-patterns. For example:<p>- frequent dissent<p>- group frequently breaks ranks when new facts emerge<p>- lack of confidence<p>- lack of a clearly-defined enemy<p>- lack of consistent message/frequent flip-flopping<p>It seems likely that some aspects of groupthink are essential for any collective action. Without it, people can't or won't work together. With too much, the group makes mistakes no individual would have made.
Groupthink happens because humans are tribal by nature. Tribes provide protection as long as you comply with their principles. Doing something contrarian is questioning those principles which is a threat to the tribe. Groupthink keeps you from being ostracized from the group as long as you go along with it because it’s desirable to be accepted in that tribe in order to achieve your long-term plans.
I have a feeling this will be true for most, but I immediately thought of the increasingly common political bubbles we often exist in today, especially given facebook feed algorithms, etc.
Does anyone else go crazy in the presence of groupthink?<p>I've never been unpopular and I'm the kind of guy to make friends with individuals in various groups, but I've always been allergic to cliques.<p>Whenever I find myself part of an in-group that's rapidly converging on groupthink, I get deeply uncomfortable and don't last long there. When I'm on the periphery of a rapidly coalescing clique, I often find myself becoming the outspoken outsider.<p>I just can't stand people agreeing on everything -- I've got to play the contrarian. Universal agreement just doesn't seem safe or comfortable.<p>I feel I have a natural resistance to groupthink and it's a huge liability. Most people seem to love forming into tribes.<p>And frankly, how do you stop the ever-present march of groupthink? I guess key is creating a culture where respectful disagreement is encouraged and expected, where people can openly admit to being wrong without losing face.
>> At the hearing, engineer Brian Russell noted that NASA managers had shifted the moral rules under which they operated.<p>I would like to juxtapose it with the current sway of moral relativism - It is okay for you but not okay for others. Where does one draw the line between an absolute moral code and an opinion.
For mobile users :<p><a href="https://pastebin.com/raw/ik8YPBhy" rel="nofollow">https://pastebin.com/raw/ik8YPBhy</a>
After reading the article, I realized that if a site like HN or Reddit wanted to mitigate groupthink, they would want to limit how much an item can be upvoted or downvoted (e.g. max 5 like Slashdot did).<p>Apparently people really like groupthink, it increases engagement.