Groupthink

The Challenger disaster is often pointed to as a classic example of groupthink—a problem in which group members strive to maintain cohesiveness and minimize conflict by refusing to critically examine ideas, analyze proposals, or test solutions (Janis, 1982). After the disaster, NASA engineers testified that the climate at NASA made them reluctant to voice their concerns if they couldn’t back them up with a full set of data (McConnell, 1987). Indeed, the Rogers Commission (1986), which investigated the disaster, noted that had safety concerns been more clearly articulated—and had NASA management been more receptive to concerns raised by engineers from various departments—it is unlikely that Challenger would have launched that day.

As you learned in Chapter 8, engaging in productive conflict fosters healthy debate and leads to better decision making. Unity and cohesion are important for groups to operate effectively, but if these qualities are taken to an extreme—that is, if they become more powerful than members’ desire to evaluate alternative courses of action—the group can’t generate enough diverse ideas to make smart decisions (Miller & Morrison, 2009; Park, 2000). This appears to have been the case at NASA in the 1980s. In a more receptive group climate, a productive conflict over the O-rings might have revealed the problems that the engineers sensed but couldn’t quite voice specifically. The following are some symptoms of groupthink that you should be aware of in your group interactions:

image
SOMETIMES VOICING dissent is more important than group unity. If the engineers at NASA had shared their concerns, the Challenger disaster might not have happened. © Bettmann/Corbis

One important way to prevent groupthink is to encourage dissent among members and manage it productively (Klocke, 2007). In fact, some of the same practices for handling interpersonal conflict discussed in Chapter 8 can help you deal constructively with disagreements in a group. For example, frame conflicts as disagreements over issues or ideas, not as evidence of a weak character or some other personal shortcoming in particular members. To illustrate, when someone in the group expresses a dissenting viewpoint, don’t say, “It’s clear that you aren’t as dedicated to our cause as I had hoped.” Instead, say something like “It looks like we have some different ideas circulating about how to handle this new problem. Let’s list these ideas and talk about the possible benefits and risks of each of them.” A recent study by Aakhus and Rumsey (2010) supports this point by noting that productive conflict can generate more supportive communication for members of an online cancer support community than simply expecting members to keep dissenting opinions private.