Often when a group of people must make a decision on some important issue, there is a great pressure to come to an agreement quickly and avoid dissent.
In 1972, Irving Janis identified a phenomenon he called groupthink, a phenomenon strongly related to this pressure.
Janis pointed to several important events in United States history that illustrate the dangers that groupthink poses to effective decision making.
As one such example, Janis cited the United States’ misguided invasion of Cuba in 1961, an event which came to be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Prior to the invasion, President John F. Kennedy brought together several advisers who were to help him make the decision about whether or not to invade Cuba.
The belief among the advisers was that the invasion would trigger a revolution among Cuban citizens, which would ultimately lead to the ouster of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
The meetings between President Kennedy and his advisers were lengthy and detailed, but the pressures imposed by groupthink led the leaders to ignore many important details that would have alerted them to the inevitable failure of the proposed invasion.
According to Janis, several conditions of group decision makings are likely to promote groupthink.
First, groupthink is likely when a group is high in cohesiveness.
Cohesiveness refers to the degree to which group members identify with the group and feel close to the other members.
Second, groupthink is likely when the group has a single strong leader, and the group members are homogenous ― that is, similar to each other and having similar views on the issue at hand.
It is under these conditions, and if a group is under pressure to come to a decision involving stressful circumstances, that groupthink is most likely to surface.
Groupthink often results in poor decision making.
Because the group members share similar views, are subject to (or subordinate to) a strong leader whose perspective is often consistent with that of the members, and identify strongly with the group as a whole, the decisions reached are often unrealistic.
By extension, actions based on such decisions are likely to fail.
The absence of dissent within the group may instill in members the perception that agreement would be widespread outside the group as well.
As the perception of agreement grows stronger, individual members become less likely to express doubts about a proposed course of action, further increasing the perception that agreement is unanimous and enhances the group’s sense of certainty.
When a decision is ultimately reached, it is likely to reflect an incomplete evaluation of options and risks.