Disadvantages Of Group Thinking

Groupthink can be defined as members of a particular group suppressing their human morality in order to ensure controversial issues do not arise. Groupthink consists of various elements by which it can be defined. It has become collectively known that group think can be identified as three different types namely: (1) overestimation of the group, (2) closed mindedness, and (3) uniformity. The groups are used to further sub-categorise the different traits of which groupthink consists.
2 1 Illusion of Unanimity
Groupthink severely limits the role of the individual members of a team as members are directly and indirectly suppressed. The view behind this concept is to ensure that all views are of a uniform nature. The illusion of unanimity is

The pressure brought down upon dissenting members takes various forms. Mr. X and Mrs. Y belief that their decisions would have no ethical consequences led to the implementation of various suppressive mechanisms to ensure that their decisions would be favoured. Mr. X threatened to have members out casted in the economic world and unable to obtain viable work in the field again. The members were viewed as disloyal to the firm and all members were encouraged to shun those that dissented in view. In contrast to this, members who agreed with the group were rewarded for their efforts in doing so, a sort of incentive to pressure those who dissented as well. One aspect of groupthink that correlates to this the pressuring of members is the suppression of other ideas. In doing so, unanimity is sought as well as members intimidated by management by way of a ‘no question’ policy. The so-called sanctity of the group decisions is upheld through the internal and external pressures from the group. Janis provides a corrective manner for this issue; he suggests that the group is further divided into sub-groups in which the views of each member are recorded and the overall idea is

This illusion effectively impairs the members to not view the decisions made, as well as conduct undertaken to be of an acceptable moral calibre. There is no universal morality which everyone can practice, but there are specific codes which can be adhered to effectively uphold some moral standard. This illusion cannot exist solely in a few members, but is rather a shared stereotyped idea about the firm as they largely have a positive reputation. The morality aspects serves as divider between what is right and what is perceived to be right or justiciable. That Mr. X and Mrs. Y believe their decisions carry no ethical consequences, weighted up in favour of the issue that lack of morality in decision making arises. In justifying their actions, they deny that their conduct is unethical, but rather that it is of a standard practiced by many enterprises in their economic sphere, averting to stating that it is a core strategy that all successful businesses employ. Janis suggests that an expert be brought in to critique the ideas of the core members in effect to give rise to a better ethical and moral decision making