Presented by : Abhijit (091202077) Vasu (091202107) Pranavi (091202075) Gavin (091202086) Manasa (091202067)

Coming together is a beginning Keeping together is progress Working together is success.

A group is a collection of two or

more people who work with one another regularly to achieve common goals.

Formal group Informal group

Groups can improve creativity. Groups can make better decisions. Groups can increase commitments to action. Groups help control their members. Groups help offset large organization size.

When there is no clear expert in a particular problem or task.

When problem solving can be handled by a division of

labor and the sharing of information.

When creativity and innovation are needed.

“ A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group

members by others”.

Types :

High status: People who control the outcome of group through their power are tend to be perceived as high status. These high status members of the group are often given more freedom to deviate from the norms than the other group members do. They can resist conformity pressures than the lower status peers.

Low status: Person having less ability to contribute to group goals with relatively low power to yield over other.

According to status characteristics theory, status tends to be derived from one of 3 sources:

The power a person yields over others. A person’s ability to contribute to group goals. Individual’s personal characteristics.

Degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group.

High Low

Determinants of Group Cohesiveness :

“Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the

realistic appraisal of alternative course of action”.

Type of group: Highly cohesive Structural contributors

Group is insulated from outside influences Members mostly homogeneous (similar) No procedural norms for decision making Dominated by a respected/credible leader

Situational contributors Group members under high stress Low group self-esteem

Key example: Pearl Harbor:

Advance warning of an attack: Military commanders received information about Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor.

Intelligence lost contact with aircraft carriers moving toward Hawaii. Failed to send air reconnaissance which could have given warning.

Result: No alert was sounded until attack. Loss of 18 ships, 170 planes, 3700 lives.

Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made.

Members apply direct pressures on those who express doubts about shared views or who question the alternative favored by the majority.

Members who have doubts or differing points of view keep silent about misgivings.

There appears to be an illusion of unanimity.

A change in decision risk between the group’s decision and the individual decision that member within the group would make; can be either toward conservatism or greater risk.

“ THE DANGERS OF GROUPTHINK ”

1 ) What are some factors that led to groupthink in the cases described here? What can teams do to attempt to prevent groupthink from occurring?

a. Members mostly homogeneous (similar). b. No procedural norms for decision making. c. Dominated by a respected/credible leader. d. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice. e. Failure to re-evaluate previously rejected

alternatives.

Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.

Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.

The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.

All effective alternatives should be examined. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted

people outside of the group. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group

members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.

At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.

2) How might differences in status among group members contribute to groupthink? For example, how might lower-status members react to a group’s decision? Are lower-status members more or less likely to be dissenters? Why might higher-status group members be more effective dissenters?

“Interaction among group members is influenced by status. The high status people tend to be more assertive, as they speak out more often, criticize, command and interrupt others more often. So in a group when there is a discussion on any matters high status people tend to argue and contribute their points. Lower status people tend to be less active participants in group discussions. This leads to group think where the lower status members in spite of having a valid point tend to be silent and accept the decisions taken by the high status members. Lower status members are less likely to be dissenters( as they agree to the official decision. Lower status people do not fully utilize their expertise and insights whereas a high status group member utilizes his ability and thus they are more likely to be dissenters.( Express of disagreement with a widely held view)”.

3) Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says that he encourages dissent. Can such norms guard against the occurrence of groupthink? As a manager, how would you try to cultivate norms that prevent groupthink?

Norms are acceptable standard of behaviour that are shared by the group members. It tells members what they ought or ought not to do under such circumstances. As we see in the first case since the group norms didn’t allow them to express their dissent about the new process it intern let to the delay of the whole process.

Similarly in the second and the third case as members of the company and the CEO rejected dissent, good ideas were put aside and because of this the companies suffered heavily.

Group norms must be created such that it encourages all the members of the group to speak up. The members must be made to give their ideas right from early stages of deliberation which overcomes groupthink.

As a manager to prevent groupthink we set up some rules like

Monitor group size. To encourage the group leaders to play an impartial

role. Seek input from all members without expressing his

own ideas. To appoint a group member to play the role of devil’s

advocate who opposes the idea of the group which will lead to divergent perspective like danger, risk involved in a particular decision.

4) How might group characteristics such as size and cohesiveness affect groupthink?

Since it is easier for fewer people to agree on goals and to co-ordinate their work, smaller groups are more cohesive than larger groups. Task cohesiveness may suffer, though, if the group lacks enough members to perform its tasks well enough. Thus group size has an effect on groupthink to some extent.

Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink, because

their cohesiveness often correlates with unspoken understanding and the ability to work together with minimal explanations. The closer group members are in

outlook, the less likely they are to raise questions that might break their cohesion. Cohesion is considered as the most important antecedent to groupthink, but

it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a

sufficient condition. Group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:

Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

Individually, we are one drop Together, we are an ocean.

Thank you