This is a guest-post from Deepika Sekar, a psychotherapist in private practice.
In the Cold War era, the Communist Revolution in Cuba, with support from the Soviet Union, was felt to be a dire threat in the U.S. Shortly after his election, U.S. President John Kennedy and his close advisers decided to invade Cuba in what is now known as the Bay of Pigs invasion. Their idea was to land a small force of CIA-trained Cuban exiles on the Cuban coast, who would then incite and lead a mass uprising against the Cuban leader, Fidel Castro. As we now know, this turned out to be a humiliating disaster for the U.S. Castro’s forces captured or killed nearly all of the U.S.-backed forces. What’s more, other Latin American countries were upset that the U.S had attacked one of their neighbours and Cuba became even more closely aligned with the Soviet Union. Learning of the outcome, President Kennedy is known to have said, “how could have we been so stupid?”
These kinds of decisions often come under the scrutiny of political scientists, but they are also studied by social psychologists who are curious about groups, what happens to an individual in a group and how they impact decisions made as a group. A phenomenon called Groupthink, they say, might explain disasters such as the Bay of Pigs invasion.
What is Groupthink?
Most textbooks explain Groupthink as ‘A kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and harmony is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner.’ It’s most likely to occur when (i) there is an amiable, cohesive group (ii) there is relative isolation of the group from dissenting viewpoints and most importantly (iii) a directive leader who signals what decision he or she favours. We see all of these in place in John Kennedy and his team. They were a tight- knit, homogenous team riding high on their election victory. They were led by John Kennedy who made it clear that he favoured the invasion. They did not particularly care to find out what pitfalls might lay in their way or seek alternate viewpoints. It was always a question of how they would execute the invasion as opposed to whether they must invade. In fact, Arthur Schlesinger, one of Kennedy’s advisers, later said that he had serious doubts about the invasion but did not express these concerns during the discussions, out of a fear that “others would regard it as presumptuous of him, a college professor, to take issue with august heads of major government institutions”. Thus, self-censorship (under pressure to conform to the leader/his followers) creates an illusion of unanimity. This is, of course, a dangerous way to make important decisions. Here are some broad guidelines to avoid Groupthink:
- Leading impartially, especially as the decision-making process unfolds: The leader must wait to consider various viewpoints and information, and must withhold his / her own opinions.
- Delaying final consensus: It must be made clear that the final decision would only be arrived at after deliberating upon key assumptions, risks and costs. It is not just what group members know, but how effectively they can share that information that determines the success of group decisions. This time-buffer can therefore be used to welcome and process more information.
- Seeking outside opinions: Opinions from outside the immediate team/organization must be invited. This helps because people outside of the organization are not concerned with maintaining group cohesiveness/group harmony. More recent studies show that Groupthink not only operates under the influence of a directive leader, but also whenever people strongly identify with a group and look to it for acceptance, approval and a sense of social identity.
- Creating sub-groups: Large groups can also be sub-divided and each of the sub-group can then share their concerns. In a large team, this can ensure that more people’s viewpoints, the unique information they may have and their concerns are appropriately presented to the management.
- Seeking anonymous opinions: Where the occasion warrants, some information may also be sought anonymously.
Fortunately, when President Kennedy faced the Cuban missile crisis, he took many of these steps to avoid groupthink. When his team discovered that the Soviet Union had placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, pointed towards the United States, Kennedy often absented himself from the initial meetings so as not to inhibit his team. He also brought in outside experts who were not members of his core team. That he successfully negotiated the removal of these missiles was almost certainly due to these improved decision-making processes he adopted.
Have you developed a process to encourage people to share information, even when it challenges popular opinion? Or have you found yourself in situations where you've withheld facts because they felt unwelcome? I'd love to hear your thoughts on what might help in these scenarios.