FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT www.tutorialoutlet.com Components of a problem Givens: pieces of information that are provided when the problem is presented

1. HU 260 analyze problems in the workplace, at school
FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT
www.tutorialoutlet.com
Components of a problem Givens: pieces of information that are
provided when the problem is presented
Goal: The desired end state – what a problem solution will hopefully
accomplish
Operations: Actions that can be performed to approach or reach the
goal Steps in Problem-Solving Process What is Groupthink?
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that may cause a failure
of a group‟s performance. This
is a trap that any previously successful group may get in.
The "groupthink" term was proposed by social
psychologist Irving Janis (1972). It occurs when a
group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a
deterioration of “mental efficiency,
reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). The alternatives are
ignored and irrational actions
dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to
groupthink when its members are
similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside
opinions, and when there are no
clear rules for decision making.

2. Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Janis, Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy
Decisions and Fiascoes. Second
Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Symptoms of Groupthink
There are eight symptoms of groupthink: Illusion of invulnerability –
Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not
reconsider their
assumptions.
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their
cause and therefore
ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of the “enemy”
make effective responses
to conflict seem unnecessary.
Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to
express arguments
against any of the group‟s views. Self-censorship – Doubts and
deviations from the perceived group consensus are not
expressed.
Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed
to be unanimous.
Self-appointed „mindguards‟ – Members protect the group and the
leader from information

3. that is problematic or contradictory to the group‟s cohesiveness, view,
and/or decisions. Remedies for Groupthink
Decision experts have determined that groupthink may be prevented
by adopting some of the
following measures:
1.
2.
3. The leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each
member
The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the
outset
Each member of the group should routinely discuss the group's
deliberations with a trusted
associate and report back to the group on the associate's reactions
4.
One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered
basis. The outside
experts should be encouraged to challenge views of the members.
5.
At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given
the role of devil's
advocate (to question assumptions and plans)
6.
The leader should make sure that a sizeable block of time is set aside
to survey warning

4. signals from rivals; leader and group construct alternative scenarios of
rivals' intentions.
HU260 Week 5 Lecture
And welcome to critical thinking, week five, where we will discuss a
lot about groupthink.
“Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a
group of people, in which the
desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in incorrect or
deviant decision-making
outcome. The group members try to minimize conflict and reach a
consensus decision without
critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating
themselves from outside
influences. Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising
controversial issues or
alternative solutions.” ~ Wikipedia.
This does happen quite a bit in many corporate environments. On the
one hand, people don't
want to rock the boat because they don't want their job in jeopardy or
seem like someone who
is a troublemaker. On the other hand, it's just easier to move forward,
get the job done and go
home if you can reach a consensus quickly in meetings. This is not
necessarily the best way to
come up with the best solution to problems on or make decisions. At
the same time, depending

5. on the topic or decision being made, you do have to account for other
people's sensibilities and
involvement in the work that they need to do. so sometimes it's not
just that you're loyal to the
group or just that you want to get the job done, it's that you have to
you have to concede
certain things because it's a group and you have to account for other
people. So it can go both
ways. but most of the time when we refer to groupthink we‟re
referring to this deviant kind of
decision-making process that can happen when people don't want to
stand out. They want to
minimize conflict, reach a consensus at all costs and not cause any
problems. This usually has a
lot to do with the leader or the boss. How they are and their approach
to this process can really
set this kind of group thinking in motion. So it really relies a lot on
the leader to press for
opposing ideas on controversial issues and other ways of looking at
things. Which is what Steve
Jobs and Apple did a lot? He would have meetings with people and
they would say, “This or that
is impossible” and he would say, “Well I know it's not and how would
you do It.” he would push
people constantly almost to the point where they thought he was crazy
sometimes. But then
they created the product and they figured it out. It helps to have a boss
or leader who really

6. understands groupthink and can push people through that need of
reaching consensus and
fitting in to discovering new ways of doing things.
Some of the causes of groupthink by Dr. Janis are high group
cohesiveness, structural faults and
situational context.
In high group cohesiveness, de- individuation, group cohesiveness
becomes more important
than individual freedom of expression. So it's almost as if in extreme
cases or not as extreme
cases, that some people were really lose their sense of self or their
sense of their opinions,
experiences and thoughts. They almost adapt the common feelings
about a topic and just let go
of their true feelings on the topic. It‟s as if they never had them or are
just easily swayed into
what the more vocal members of the group are saying or thinking. In
structural faults we have installation of the group, lack of impartial
leadership, lack of norms
requiring methodological procedures and homogeneity of member‟s
social backgrounds and
ideology. So in building the group, the structural faults are that it's too
insulated, isolated and
segregated off. They are not in the midst of what's going on with other
influences around them.
You‟ll see a lot of corporate places are trying to have a more open
floor plan where different

7. departments are mixing together. Everybody‟s working in one big
room that they try and design
somewhat creatively. This really seems to be helping to get more
innovative ideas going.
Lack of impartial leadership is what we discussed before, especially
the Steve Jobs example.
Lack of norms requiring different methodological procedures are that
they don't really have a
set procedure for how to analyze the problem and to bring in new and
interesting ideas. If you
have a set of procedures in place that you follow all the time looks
like you have set standards
here that are meant to be followed. People in the group can feel good
about blaming a set of
standards. Pushing them to come up with something controversial or
something different is sort
of like laying off some of the burden and responsibility onto a set of
standard rather than them
just stepping up to make things different and find different solutions.
You have fantasies of
procedures you can fall back on for that. Sometimes social
backgrounds and ideologies are just
way too similar. The mix of people in the group making the decisions
is just not diverse enough.
They are all from the same place, the same experiences and the same
upbringing. Depending
on the topic, they're not able to even see anything different and they
do have the same

8. opinions on everything and reach consensus pretty well because they
are so much alike.
In situational conflicts, you have highly stressful external threats,
recent failures, excessive
difficulties on the decision-making task and moral dilemmas. So it
depends on what kind of
problem they're working on. If it had a lot of failures or if they have a
lot of threats from bosses,
they're under a lot of pressure and that can really hamper the decision-
making process. If
there's a moral dilemma it is very hard to come to consensus in those
situations. It‟s hard to
step up and be different and cause other people to spend more time on
something because
you're raising more questions.
She goes on to talk about eight symptoms of groupthink. The illusion
of invulnerability which
creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Some members will see a like
they can do something very controversial because of the anonymity of
being in a group. They
feel like they are not standing out by making this decision, but that
it‟s the groups doing. You
have other people to carry the burden of certain decisions and actions.
Groupthink can lead to
violence and it can lead to not taking any action when action is
needed, especially to help

9. someone. There is this feeling of anonymity from being a part of the
group. A feeling of
someone else will take care of certain things and you'll have to step up
and do as much. So it
can lead to taking extreme risks and it can lead to inaction as well.
Collective rationalization, that's also part of this. Members discount
warnings and do not
reconsider their assumptions. So with the anonymity and feeling of
being a part of the group it‟s
much easier to not pay attention to warnings and to just move forward
with something that‟s an extreme risk and present information that
could be harmful. It‟s all about this feeling of
invulnerability and rationalizing what you're doing which is much
easier when you have a whole
group of people agreeing to it. Even someone who normally wouldn't
do certain things when
they're in this group mindset will take more risks, especially if there's
an element of peer
pressure. You don't want to be the one standing out and saying no and
not participating. That
can have a big effect on the actions and the material that comes from
certain groups.
This leads into belief in inherent morality and stereotyped views of
out groups. Here, members
believe in the rightness of their cause and ignore the ethical or moral
consequences of their
decisions. When you're standing alone, it's much more normal to want
to make sure that you're

10. considering the other side, that you're considering affects the moral
obligations of things. We
don't want to be criticized and singled out so we tend to be much
more careful when it is just
us. But when you're in a group it's much easier to believe that what
you're doing is right. If one
person has of a doubt about it there will be enough other members to
step up and reinforce the
beliefs and the actions being taken. It‟s easy to have negative views of
the enemy making
effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. It‟s almost a feeling
of demonizing the enemy,
seeing them as the other, and so separate. The fact that they found a
real, balanced resolution
to the problem is not even considered in the situation. It becomes a
contest of winning and
having power over another group and being better. The morality is
just thrown out the window
along with every question of bias and neutrality. Considering
opposing views is just gone.
More symptoms groupthink presents are direct pressure on dissenters
and self-censorship.
Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of
the group‟s views. There
is pressure the moment anyone starts to question the authority or
cohesiveness of the group.
Sometimes it's just felt pressure. It‟s not always something that is
spoken aloud, but you can

11. tell. You can tell through body language when you start saying
anything that goes against the
group. You‟re pretty much in tune with things and you know if you
start speaking up against the
group that these things will happen. There‟s direct pressure and not to
rock the boat or cause
problems. This leads to self-censorship. Doubts and deviations from
the perceived group
consensus are not expressed. This happens a lot if a job is on the line.
You tend to censor
yourself so you're not putting your neck out there to get fired. You
tend to self-censor even in
times when it may not be as needed. This can really affect someone
on a personal level and
other areas of their life. They start watching everything they're saying
and doing and it just
snowballs and becomes a real problem for individual members. A lot
of self-doubts about
feelings and ideas really start coming into play and a person can really
start acting differently
and almost isolating themselves. This can really start to affect people
on a personal level.
Finally, we have the illusion of unanimity and self-appointed mind
guards. The majority view
about judgments is assumed to be unanimous. There is an illusion
here that what a couple
people in the group are stating is true. Everyone is just assuming that
it's a unanimous idea.

12. They assume that they're the only ones who disagree. If no one is
doing a headcount of who
agrees and disagrees. This could be skewed. Most people will want to
agree on this easy
solution. Members will also protect the group and the leader from
information that is
problematic or contradictory to the group's cohesiveness, view and/or
decisions. It can get to a level where some members of the group may
be a little intimidated by the leader. Some leaders
will sort of like to kill the messenger. Anybody that comes to them
with something that is
contradictory could be harshly punished, yelled at or ostracized. If
you have this kind of kill the
messenger thing going on in the group, then members will be quick to
hide any information that
is contradictory or cause problems so that they don't have to stand out.
In that way it's not
necessarily about the information. You would think somebody would
want all the information.
But if it‟s going cause a lot of problems then people tend to attack the
messenger for bringing it
up. If they don‟t do that then they would have to challenge the whole
basis of everything that
they're doing. This happens a lot in the scientific world. You‟ll notice
that there are so many
research studies out there that a lot of scientists will select only those
studies and facts that fit

13. with their hypothesis. When you have 20 or 30 different resources to
use you can pick and
choose the one that really supports your opinion and research.
Without the neutrality of
considering other views, making sure using you the most up to date
information and have
standards then groupthink can happen. You need to have a set of
standards that help to keep
you from falling into this. There needs to be a good leader who really
wants to be challenged to
come up with the most innovative, creative and wonderful answer to
problems and issues that
they can.