When Conformity Becomes Dangerous

Have you ever been in a leadership meeting where everyone nods, no one asks questions -- and it all feels a little too consensual? Then you may have known the flavor of groupthink.

What is groupthink?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon in which the desire for harmony and togetherness in a group becomes so strong that critical thinking, different perspectives and real discussion disappear. It can lead to poor decisions—even in the most competent teams (Janis, 1972). The term was launched by Irving Janis in the 1970s.

He identified eight characteristics of groupthink, among them:

• Illusion of invulnerability

•Belief in the moral superiority of the group

• Stereotypes of outsiders

• Self-censorship and pressure against deviants

• Illusion of unanimity

Groupthink has been used to explain serious misjudgments, such as:

• Bay of Pigs Invasion: Planned and carried out despite major weaknesses — because no one challenged the premise.

• Challenger accident (1986): Engineers had serious concerns, but culture prevented them from stopping the launch (Vaughan, 1996).

In organizations, groupthink can lead to:

• Excessive belief in one's own right and control

• Underestimation of risk and alternative information

• Agreeing for the sake of agreement

Silence from those who see weaknesses

Why does it happen?

Groupthink often occurs in teams with:

• Strong cohesion and loyalty

• A dominant leader

• Time pressure and decision stress

• Lack of external criticism or diversity

Research shows that diversity in teams, psychological security, and conscious leadership reduce the risk of groupthink (Edmondson & Roloff, 2009; Nemeth, 2018).

What can managers do?

As a leader, you are an important key. Not to control the direction of the team, but to protect the space of reflection, resistance and nuances.

1. Actively invite disagreement

Ask questions like:

“What could we have overlooked?”

“What other ways can we see this?”

“What would a critic say?”

2. Break up the decision-making process

Avoid landing important decisions in the same meeting in which they are introduced. Leave room for digestion and new information.

3. Appoint a “critical friend”

Give one person in the group the responsibility to challenge the thinking. This lowers the threshold for others' input (Schweiger et al., 1986).

4. Use diversity consciously

Involve people with different backgrounds, professional skills and perspectives. Ask follow-up questions to minority voices.

5. Pay attention to your own role

If the leader always has the last word, people stop having their say. Divide first as number three or four—and show that you're listening, even when you change your mind.

6. Measure and follow up

Use brief evaluations after decision-making: Were different viewpoints lifted? Was there real discussion? This gives a picture of the development of the team over time.

Reflection Questions for Leadership Teams

When do we experience the most agreement—and dare we trust it?

What voices in the team rarely appear?

How do we react when someone disagrees with the majority?

What are we doing to create real discussion?

A good decision withstands friction

Groupthink thrives in the quiet. But the best decisions are made through resistance, curiosity and nuance. Not because we disagree for the sake of disagreement -- but because we seek better answers together.

A leader who tolerates disagreement creates security. A leader who asks questions opens up new spaces. And a team that can challenge each other with respect -- that has a competitive edge.

References

•Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.

•Nemeth, C. J. (2018). In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business. Basic Books.

•Edmondson, A. C., & Roloff, K. S. (2009). Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse teams. In E. Salas et al. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations.

•Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.

•Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29 (1), 51—71.