Groupthink

Groupthink

Groupthink (defined) is a process of thinking and decision making that occurs when a group strives to minimize conflict, maximize cohesiveness, and reach a consensus without critically testing, analyzing and evaluating ideas. Generally, the group reaches a decision too quickly and does not properly consider the implications of its decisions. It is an ineffective consensus, where too little conflict often lowers the quality of group decisions. (Beebe, Steven A and John T. Masterson, “Communicating in Small Groups: Principles and Practices,” 10th ed. Allyn & Bacon, New York: Pearson, 2012.)

In Chapter 9, Engleberg and Wynn quote the father of Groupthink research, Irving Janis, as he states, “[groupthink is] a phenomenon that describes the deterioration of group effectiveness that results from in-group pressure.”

Effective group leaders encourage participation, brainstorming, constructive nonconformity, and free thinking. However, leaders in groups experiencing  Groupthink often advocate conformity by quieting group members, dissuading discussion, and discouraging examination of varying ideas. The dynamics, struggles, and tragic outcomes of Groupthink are illustrated in the 1986 Challenger Shuttle Disaster.

                                   Groupthink in Action!

On January 28, 1986 the Challenger space shuttle took off from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. Within 73 seconds after the launch the entire space shuttle exploded into a ball of flames killing everyone on board.

Government investigations concluded that the explosion was due to a crack in an O-ring used to seal one of the joints on shuttle’s solid rocket boosters. The investigations also revealed that there were several meetings and group communications between engineers at NASA and Morton Thiokol Inc. (MTI), the corporation that designed the O-ring. In the communication, MTI engineers, particularly engineer Roger Boisjoly, warned NASA engineers that the O-ring might not seal properly if the shuttle were launched in cold weather.

In July 1985, Boisjoly, who was revered as a “crackerjack trouble-shooter,” wrote a memo to MTI management experessing his deep concern about the functionality of the O-rings. A task force was put together to examine Boisjoly’s concerns. Unfortunately, paperwork, bureaucracy, delays, and pressure to rush the launch impeded the work of the task force. Proper tests on the O-rings were never conducted.

Despite continued warnings from Roger Boisjoly and other MTI engineers, NASA engineers, based on the instructions of Administrative Director, Jesse W Moore, decided to launch Challenger in 36 degree weather (15 degrees colder than the expected launch temperature and well below previous launch temperatures).

Government investigations revealed that an organizational culture of arrogance at NASA inspired the NASA directors, and subsequently the engineers, to believe that they could do no wrong. As a result, NASA directors and engineers ignored the advise of the MTI engineers, who insisted on postponing the Challenger launch.

Distressed by the response he received to his warnings, Boisjoly organized a “Stop Launch” group at MTI. Certain MTI engineers opposed Boisjoly’s ‘whistle-blowing’ actions and threatened that he would be in trouble if he caused MTI to go under. The internal conflict at MTI added to the arrogant corporate culture at NASA, which was later held as a key factor contributing to the unethical and immoral decision-making that lead to the country’s greatest aerospace engineering disaster at the time. Failure to listen to a “constructive nonconformist,” and the exercise of “coercive and legitimate power” by the management at NASA lead to an avoidable loss of seven lives.

During the investigations following the explosion, Roger Boisjoly testified honestly before Congress. He was shunned from the aerospace community for the remainder of his life. He died quietly on January 6, 2012, at the age of 73. Only his local newspaper initially reported his passing.

Video discussion of what the seven astronauts experienced after the explosion. If in-active, copy and paste url into browser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=uqcd_3daPQ8

Sadly, NASA management and engineers did not learn competent group decision-making and the danger of Groupthink from the 1986 Challenger disaster. Under a new Mission Director, Linda Ham, NASA engineers went on to make similar mistakes during the decision-making processes related to the 2003 Columbia Shuttle launch.

Comments by Challenger Commander Richard Scobee’s wife: Video clip of the Challenger explosion. This clip reflects actual footage of the explosion.

If in-active, copy and paste url into browser to view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8AoMTxrD80

Photo above: “Flight Crew of Challenger.” Photo. Washington Post. 29 Jan. 1986. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.

Objectives –   This project gives students the opportunity to:

1. Further understand and apply small group communication theory and concepts such as cohesion, conflict, consensus, norms, power and trust as they relate to ‘groupthink,”
2. Develop self-awareness and practice in using competent small group communication skills,
3. Develop competent research and presentation skills, and
4. Develop critical thinking skills.

Team Presentation

1) Teams work together to research and present a team analysis of a real-life corporate groupthink scenario. The team must present a complete, coherent explanation of the Groupthink situation. The presentations must flow from one to the next, with clear introductions and ‘hand-offs’ to the next speaker at the end of each person’s speech. The last person must include an overall conclusion to the entire group presentation.

In the PowerPoint (or Prezi, or Google) and the verbal presentations each student must demonstrate understanding of course concepts as he/she applies the course material to the events surrounding the group decision. Concepts such as roles, cohesion, conflict and conflict styles, consensus, groupthink, norms, power, leadership, trust and more should be included.  Again, members should include understanding of course material such as roles, group stages, diversity, leadership, etc.  You do not have to address all of these items in your presentation.  

2) Each member of the team must conduct research. I encourage you to use the Library databases such as National Newspapers Proquest and Academic Search Complete, for your research.

3) Each team member must have at least three research articles for their section of material included in the presentation.  Each team member must give an oral citation to each of his/her sources during the speech. State, “According to an article by X Author, that appeared in X Publication, on X Date.” Each team member must write a Works Cited in MLA format and upload it to Blackboard. Consult Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab) on the Internet for proper MLA format.

4) Each team member must post their video to YouTube.

5) ONE selected “team leader” will email the professor a copy of the entire team PowerPoint AND works cited. (Do not edit the individual slides or cites), but do indicate which citations go to which team member. Feel free to put each person’s name at the end of the cite. The team will share the sum of its research via one coordinated, coherent PowerPoint presentation which includes photos of the people involved, as well as charts and graphs where appropriate. If charts and graphs are used be sure to thoroughly explain them. 

6) Each teammate must speak for 5-6 minutes during his/her portion of the group presentation. Stand next to your TV or laptop and display your PowerPoint. Dress professionally. Speak as if your entire team is in the same room.  If your group wants to use a different presentation recording method, you must contact me ahead of time and everyone in your group must use the same method.  Any presentation method you use must include a video recording of each person presenting their speech plus the ability to display a PowerPoint presentation.  For example, one semester a group chose to use GoToWebinar (which costs about $90).

If you have never used visual aids in a speech or want a refresher, more information is available here: http://publicspeakingproject.org/PDF%20Files/visual%20aids%20web%201.pdf   More information on how to deliver a speech is available in this video (featuring Mr. Geiger) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjaWWUkz-Uw and in this handout http://publicspeakingproject.org/PDF%20Files/delivery%20web%201.pdf

4. Stand, dress professionally,and record your presentation on a Smart Phone or Computer with your PowerPoint visible on a TV screen or laptop.

A Team Presentation should include the sections below. Each person should cover and present on one section. 

If you have less than six members, you do not have to cover all of the sections.  Be sure to clearly indicate which sections you are including.   

If your team has seven members, you should split gains/losses into two sections (one on gains and one on losses).  

Be sure to collaborate on the research, speech writing, and construction of the slides to ensure elaboration, and to avoid repetition.

Course material should be covered in each section. The following sections should be included:

1. Brief summary of the ‘groupthink‘ decision-making that took place within the corporation to create a false consensus.PowerPoint talking points could include, but are not limited to –  information and photos that illustrate, Types of power, impact of power on decision making, conflict, conflict styles, cohesion, …
2. In-depth information about GroupThink and communication theory.Talking points can include the definition of GroupThink, causes of GroupThink, symptoms, expressions of GroupThink.  You will likely have to conduct outside, scholarly research on GroupThink.  This material can be accessed by using the COD library website and selecting the Communication and Mass Media Complete database and searching for full text articles (http://www.codlrc.org/databases/titles).  You will need a library card to access this database.  Note: every team member still needs to talk about Communication theory/the textbook material in their individual presentations.
3. In-depth overview of the corporation and decision making.PowerPoint talking points could include, but are not limited to – information about the corporate culture, leadership styles, norms, trust and power that created the ‘groupthink’ conditions. Thought questions: What was the corporate culture? Who were the corporate leaders? What norms were present that allowed the unethical decision making to occur? What type of trust was present among group members, the public, etc? What type of power did the leaders and group members exercise that contributed to the immoral decision making? How was legitimate power used to override expert power? How were constructive nonconformist managed? Again, incorporate material from the book in each section, ie roles, dialectics, norms, power, Tuckman’s stages, Golemann’s 5M Leadership Model, and more.
4. Gains, losses (if your group has six or more members, split this into two sections). PowerPoint talking points could include, but are not limited to –  How did the public respond (address trust), how did the government respond (address conflict and power)?  Did corporate leaders use legitimate power to gain money, jobs, prestige, etc? Did employees lose jobs of pensions? Were there lawsuits, trials, or bankruptcy? Again, incorporate material from the book in each section, ie roles, dialectics, norms, power, Tuckman’s stages, Golemann’s 5M Leadership Model, and more.
5. Summary of the aftermath of the ‘groupthink.’Powerpoint talking points could include, but are not limited to –  What government regulations resulted, what happened to the group culture or group vision? What happened to the manager, leader, person who came up with the original ‘bad idea?’ What happened to the people who went along with the ‘bad idea?’ (loss of expert, referent, coercive power, loss of job, prison, etc.) What happened to the people who opposed the ‘bad idea?’ (Was the ‘whistle blower’ shunned, rewarded, …?)  Again, incorporate material from the book in each section, ie roles, dialectics, norms, power, Tuckman’s stages, Golemann’s 5M Leadership Model, and more.
6. Recommendations to avoid another corporate ‘groupthink’ situation such as the one reviewed. Powerpoint talking points could include, but are notlimited to –   Does the team recommend government regulation, stricter accounting, outside review, etc.? Be sure to address consensus reaching, techniques to avoid groupthink, appreciation for constructive nonconformist. Again, incorporate material from the book in each section, ie roles, dialectics, norms, power, Tuckman’s stages, Golemann’s 5M Leadership Model, and more. This section must include viable suggestions. Discuss what people and/or what agencies would implement these recommendations.

Videotaped Presentations and Group PowerPoint

In summary, teammates should:

• Dress in business attire to present their portion of the presentation,
• Prepare their portion of a PowerPointincluding research, photos, charts, maps, etc,
• Each team member muststand and speak for at least five minutes,
• State the author, publication and full dateof each research source before you share the research in your presentation to avoid plagiarism,
• Display  PowerPointon TV via a VGA, USB or cable suitable for your TV (You may need to buy or borrow a cable.
• Upload recorded speech onto YouTube.  Help on how to upload a video toYouTube may be found here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/57407?hl=en   
• ONE team leader should email the complete team PowerPoint and Works Cited to geigerj@cod.edu.Again, do not edit anyone’s cites or slides, but do let me know which cites go to what person. Write the person’s name before listing each of his/her citations, so I know which cites belong to which student.
• SUBMISSION: One group member submits the team PowerPoint to geigerj@cod.edu.  They should include the group rubric (attached above).  They should enter in all group member names on the rubric in the order they present their speeches. When submitting the email, please be sure to CC all group members.  I will email the submitted group rubric back to everyone.   Each person should also submit their own portion of the PowerPoint to me via Blackboard, by clicking on the title above (Creative Problem Solving…) and then attaching it as a file.  Please be sure to do this, as I won’t be able to use the grading rubric if you don’t upload something.

Possible organizations to review:

1. Nuvaringblood clot deaths and injuries, product by Merck Pharmaceuticals,
2. General Motors Chevy Cobalt ignition-switch defect,
3. Penn State and the Jerry Sandusky scandal,
4. Bayof Pigs,
5. EnronCorporation accounting fraud,
6. Ford Explorer TRX tire rollovers,
7. NASA Columbia explosion of 2003,
8. Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, or Morgan Stanley’s credit default swap scandal of 2008,
9. Ford Pinto gas tank design flaw,
10. US government 9/11 decision-making,
11. Crazy Eddie,
12. Toyota Motor Sales USA,
13. British Airways,

14.Columbia Shuttle Disaster,

15. Other possible corporations:

Peregrine Systems, Cendant, Comp U Card International, Health South, Tyco International Ltd. Just for FEET, Jamaica Water, Health Management, Leslie Fay Co, Star Technologies, Lincoln Savings and Loan, ZZZZ Best Co., United States Surgical Corp., New Century Financial Corp., Creve Couer Pizza, F + C International, Oak Industries, Wiley Jackson, Golden Bear Golf, Happiness Express, Capital Bank, CBI Holding Co., Campbell Soup Co.

For even more company names you can Google “corporate scandal,” “dot com bubble,” “corporate governance,” “accounting fraud” or similar words.