INTERPERSONAL DYNAMICS & GROUP BEHAVIOUR

Prepared By: Shweta Adlakha Ankit Dua Geetanjali Kapoor Manish Kr. Singh

Group Decision Making

Groupthink
Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative course of action.

Groupshift
A change in decision risk between the groups decision and the individual decision that member within the group would make; can be either toward conservatism or greater risk.

Why People Join Groups

Security Status Self-esteem Affiliation Power

Goal Achievement

GROUP THINK

Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.
Groupthink is related to norms. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity determine the group. Groupthink is a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder their performance.

What can managers do to minimize groupthink?

Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially I the early stages of deliberation. One such exercise is to have group members talk about dangers or risks involved in a decision and delaying discussion of any potential gains. Members to first focus on the negatives of a decision alternative, the group is less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.

The discovery of groupthink

Within the period of a little over a year and a half, the Kennedy administration made one of the worst and one of the best foreign policy decision in U.S. history.
Bay of Pigs Cuban Missile Crisis

Groupthink & the Bay of Pigs

Cohesion (Kennedy White House & esprit de corps) Directive leadership (JFK made known his intentions early in the process) High stress (first time on world stage) Insulation & limited search (due to sensitivity of matter little outside intervention) Invulnerable or unlimited confidence (get away with cover story for the invasion) Self-censorship (Schlesinger wrote critical memos to others but withheld criticism at the White House) Mindguards (Edward Murrow of USIA was prevented from voicing opposition) Outgroup stereotyping (press to blame for release of information) Limited search for conflicting information (no evidence that invasion would set off mass revolt in Cuba) No risk assessment No contingency plans made (except escape to distant mountain area if invasion failed)

Cuban Missile Crisis

As a result of the Bay of Pigs, JFK: Took responsibility for the decision personally Conducted a review of the decision to establish new procedures The new procedures included: Group members told to be critical and watchdogs Outside experts and fresh perspectives obtained Independent subgroups to create competing policies Leadless sessions (JFK not present to direct discussion)

Results of Cuban Missile Crisis

Despite operating under conditions of high cohesion and stress and threat, the group made an effective decision including:
The creation of contingency plans Realistic risk appraisal Reversal of judgments and decisions Complete information search and appraisal

Other groupthink fiascos:

Lack of preparedness at Pearl Harbor Watergate Challenger disaster City of Santa Cruzs earthquake preparedness Appeasement of Nazi Germany Decisions at Kent State Marketing the drug thalidomide Israels lack of preparedness for Oct. 1973 war WorldCom accounting fraud incident Columbia space shuttle tragedy

Mitigating the Effects of Groupthink

Goals: Decision quality Decision acceptance (by group and constituents) General strategies: Increase constructive conflict (debate and discussion about the issues) Decrease emotional conflict (desire to maintain social identity) Conduct a social influence analysis to determine sources of influence that may serve to bias decision making Results: Teams that focus on facts, consider multiple alternatives, create common goals, use humor, balance power, and seek consensus based on qualifications perform better than their counterparts.

GROUP SHIFT
It indicates that in discussing a given set alternatives and arriving at a solution. In Group shift, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions that they hold. In some situations, caution dominates, and there is a conservative shift. More often, however, the evidence indicates that groups tend toward a risky shift.

CAUSES OF GROUP SHIFT

Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink, because their cohesiveness often correlates with unspoken understanding and the ability to work together with minimal explanations (e.g., techspeak or telegraphic speech). Directive leadership. Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology. Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

SYMPTOMS OF GROUP SHIFT

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty". Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement. Mind guards self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

GROUP SHIFT

When the initial position of individuals in the group exaggerates toward a more extreme position.

CASE STUDY