The first researcher to the problem was Janice I.. He analyzed the political decisions of major economic organizations. He was interested in the decision-making process, which later proved incorrect.
Janice came to the conclusion that in the circulation of information within the group there are at least six types of defects that can lead to erroneous decisions. To even make a decision, and the team and the individual must continually receive and verify information received.
In this process, the following possible defects:
1) restriction to a few (usually two) of views, without considering other alternatives;
2) the denial of re-analysis of the modus operandi, which was originally supported by the majority as the most effective;.
3) neglect of the actions that initially were considered unsatisfactory by the group;
4) failure to attract experts who could assess the advantages and disadvantages of alternative modes of action;
5) the selective attitude to estimates and judgments of experts not belonging to the group (we accept evidence of the correctness of the chosen direction, avoiding or ignoring all others);
6) inattentively related to factors that hinder the successful achievement of the goal.
All of these errors may be related to personal characteristics of members of the group, and may arise from the properties of the group itself. What conditions contribute to syndrome group thinking? Janice I. states: "Belonging to a group of" outweighs "the ability to realistically assess the situation." The consequences of the decisions taken in the presence of the syndrome have a significant impact on the fate of decision makers, their prestige and self-esteem. Is often not enough background information or to submit to the consequences of difficult decisions. All of this relates to the personal liability of the one who decides. In such a situation, the host team may decide to count only on themselves.
The importance to the group mentality is cohesion. When group cohesion, its members estimate it positively, want to belong to it to express to each other sympathy and solidarity. Unfortunately, the cohesion of the group reduces its effectiveness. The higher the cohesion, the more likely errors associated with the syndrome of group thinking.
Effects of the syndrome increases with respect to conformity to group norms. If a member of the group should not be its internal rules, the team first tries to "to urge him on the path, and then, if its efforts will be futile casts excluded to preserve the unity of the group.
In groups manifest tendency to the dehumanization of competitive or hostile groups
through the dissemination of stereotypes.
Another important phenomenon - a tendency to "shift the risk." It consists in taking a group of more risky decisions than with individual choice. Janice writes: "Thinking people are deeply involved in a cohesive team, and their efforts to achieve unanimity prevented them from realistically evaluating alternative ways of working."
We define the features of a group mentality, which has identified eight Janice I.:
1) the illusion of omnipotence and invincibility, shared by the group and creates confidence in the success and the propensity to take risks
2) protective rationalization of non re-discussion of the problem;
3) undeniable belief in the inherent morality groups, preventing the emergence of doubt the moral implications of decisions;
4) the stereotypical perception of adversaries as evil, weak or foolish;
5) direct pressure on any party, the group challenging the stereotypes;
6) self-censorship, understates the role of emerging from the individual members of the group and the counter-question;
7) Illusion mindedness, reinforced the conviction that the silence - a sign of consent;
8) The appointment of "correct thought police", whose task is to protect
group from the influx of unwanted information.
The more of these symptoms occur, the lower the quality of decision-making.
It is also inevitable in syndrome group thinking cohesive group? Avoid it is very difficult. Relatively independent thinking is peculiar to those members
groups that maintain a relationship based on mutual approval. This gives them confidence in their significance for the group irrespective of their judgments. The more a person feels the approval of the other (which is
measure of cohesion), the more he has the freedom of expression.
The optimal level of decision-making groups show an average degree of cohesion. Alas, a nice "club" atmosphere and the prestigious membership of the elite do not protect, and to encourage the emergence of the syndrome in group thinking.
How can we benefit from cohesion, not incurring losses from group thinking?
1. Leader should welcome criticism of members of the group, encourage them to criticism.
2. The leader should be impartial: not to define the initial expectations and preferences.
3. By working on the same problem should involve several groups involved in the decision.
4. Group decision-making, should be temporarily divided into subgroups,
working independently of each other, and then comparing the results of the work.
5. Each member of the group should discuss the issue outside the group, examining the views of others regarding the proposed solution and avoiding the pressure of the group.
6. It should involve the cooperation of independent experts.
7. In evaluating alternative solutions, at least one member of the group should lead to the decision of the counter (this role in the group need to take turns).
8. Should be given time and attention to the possible reactions and intentions of competitors and adversaries. You can use the techniques psihodramy; they welcome the role of "lawyer Cassandra" (pythoness whose warnings and predictions have never been taken seriously).
9. Obtain prior approval for certain decisions, should hold another meeting, which will set out the remaining doubts and fears.
Posts
