Manz and Neck (1997) stated Groupthink focuses on negative aspects of team decision making. Janis (1982) proposed the presence of a number of specific antecedent conditions increases the probability that the group will demonstrate symptoms representative of groupthink. Manz and Neck (1997) specified the tendency of groupthink: direct social pressure placed on a member who argues against the group’s shared beliefs, members’ self-censorship of their own thoughts or concerns that deviate from the group consensus, an illusion of the groups’ invulnerability to failure shared illusion of unanimity, the emergence of self-appointed mind guards that screen out information from outside the group that does not agree with the general group consensus, collective efforts to rationalize decisions, stereotyped views of enemy or competing leaders as weak or incompetent, an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality. Moorhead (1986) added these symptoms will lead to observable defects in the group’s decision-making processes that might result in poor quality decisions. Manz and Neck (1997) argue self-managing teams are especially vulnerable to groupthink because they tend to be cohesive and provide a breeding ground for conformity – the two prime ingredients for groupthink. Is there a scenario where groupthink can be considered beneficial?
References:
Charles C. Manz, Christopher P. Neck. (1997) Teamthink: beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Team Performance Management, 3 (1).
Janis, I.L., Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1982.
Moorhead, G. and Montanari, J., “An empirical investigation of the groupthink phenomenon”, Human Relations, Vol. 39, 1986, pp. 399-410.
