Introduction
Organizations and businesses are faced with numerous decisions to make from time to time. Crucial decision-making processes involve a team that is mandated with gathering and interpreting information (Sukthankar & Sycara, 2010, p.505). However, this team decision-making may not be the best especially where the participants do not exchange enough information, or the team does not explore sufficient alternatives leading to inaccurate conclusions. This paper examines the symptoms of groupthink and highlights several solutions to mitigate groupthink in team decision-making processes. The accounting fraud within the WorldCom Company can be attributed to groupthink, and it is used to understand the symptoms and wrong decisions that were made within the enterprise. Irving Janis (1972) introduced the term groupthink to describe the faulty decisions that are present in group decision making due to group pressures that lead to weakening the moral judgment, reality testing, and mental efficiency among the members. The members try to avoid conflict with either the team leader or colleagues, and they come to a consensus decision that has not undergone a comprehensive evaluation of diverse viewpoints or alternative ideas. Xiao and Eastmure (2014, p.2) explain that groupthink is a significant barrier to giving enough attention to information processing and appraisal leading to an inconclusive justification. Today, a wide range of decisions in both business and political arena are made in groups that are forced to work under time constraints and high-pressure at times result in devastating results. Historical events such as the accounting errors in WorldCom Company have been linked to adverse decision making as a result of groupthink.
Symptoms
Rapoport et al. (2009, p.11) assert that there exist some symptoms of groupthink that are evident when the members of a team-mandated with the decision-making process are not ready to criticise or offer alternatives to the ideas that their leader or associates propose. According to Janis (2013, p.13), a characteristic of groups is that members feel more accepted by their co-workers to display their solidarity and to conform to group norms. Therefore, these members become constrained to offer their opinions as they fear being discriminated against or punished for antagonising their fellow members or the leader. Janis (2013, p.21) writes that the more cohesive a group, the higher the obligation of each member to avoid creating disunity and they are persuaded to believe in the proposals that a majority of the group members accept.
Invulnerability
A majority or all the members of a group have an impression they are immune to specific factors. They share the misconception that offers them some form of reassurance towards specific apparent dangers and leads the team to become willing to take unusual risks. Once the leader or a majority of the members settle for a decision, then the rest of the team believe in their judgement, and they follow the plan as it is a guarantee of success. Despite some of the choices being risky, they hold onto their luck. Rapoport et al. (2009, p.39) explain that this illusion increases when the team has achieved success in the past, and the members become certain that they always make the best decisions. The illusion of invulnerability was evident in WorldCom particularly after its stock began to rise. The management and employees of the organisation ignored important auditing procedures as they did not fear the results of these offences.
Rationale
The groups that suffer from the first symptom of groupthink, invulnerability, will come up with a collective justification particularly in decisions that have a high-risk to discount warnings. A group can perceive negative information in an approach that supports the previous position or policies that were agreed upon by members. A report by the Securities and Exchange Commission highlighted practices within WorldCom to rationalise its accounting fraud. Accounting and finance employees who were aware of the accounting abnormalities rationalised them by assuming that the CFO had opened a new approach to accounting principles. According to Howard (2011, p.437), this rationalisation affected the decisions of employees not to challenge the management and the organisation's accounting practices.
Morality
A team under the influence of groupthink automatically believe in the rightness and morality of their plan. The decision makers are made to ignore moral and ethical consequences that are connected to their decisions. According to Henningsen et al. (2016, p.38), the members hold that their actions benefit all stakeholders, they understand the interests of everyone, and they assume they have full control of the moral compass. The executives of WorldCom were victims of groupthink as they suffered from a belief in their inherent morality. They concentrated on the results they would obtain in their accounting practices, and they did not focus on the means they use to reach the financial goal. The CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers, mocked an idea presented on establishing a corporate Code of Conduct as he believed that the board was in control of the moral compass and they were able to decide what is moral or ethical.
Stereotypes
Henningsen et al. (2016, p.39) list the next symptom of groupthink as the stereotype views towards opponents of the team both within the group and outside. The members hold negative stereotypical views that portray someone as either to be with or against the group and leaving no middle ground. This symptom leads to intelligent and experienced members to be hesitant or refrain from challenging the decisions that are made by colleagues or by the leader as they are not willing to display their dissatisfaction in front of their co-workers. Similarly, those who do not understand complex issues at hand will pretend to follow to avoid the perception that they are misinformed or unintelligent.
Pressure
Howard (2011, p.433) reveals that victims of groupthink apply direct pressure on any individual who questions the validity of the decisions made by a majority or who express doubt regarding the shared illusions. A culture of fear is cultivated among the low-level members as they are forced to agree to every decision made within the group. There was the great pressure that was placed on the dissenters within accounting and management teams in WorldCom. According to the SEC report, Ebbers exerted pressure on the groups that led to the fraud. The members worked under intense pressure, and they had to make incorrect accounting entries while they feared to stop the fraud. Howard (2011, p.438) asserts that the pressure was felt among low-level accountants who feared to question their superiors as they would lose their jobs.
Self-censorship
Self-censorship involves members avoiding conflicting with the group consensus which is a symptom of groupthink. Those who do not support the group in certain decisions will keep silent, or their disagreement is unclear when the majority favour a decision. Where a minority object the rest of the group, they prefer censoring their concerns rather than standing against the decisions of the group. This symptom is common in boardrooms where the members at the low-level are forced to remain silent or publicly agree to decisions during the resolution making process. The accountants and executives in WorldCom engaged in self-censorship as they were aware of the irregularities in the accounting practices that were happening within the organisation. All employees avoided questioning the illegal practice as they did not want to break the consensus within WorldCom.
Unanimity
Groups are composed of individuals who respect each other’s opinions. The members are pressured to accept decisions as they want to avoid being the last to get on board. There is an illusion that silence implies consent and staff within an organisation become afraid to discuss problems openly. Decision makers within WorldCom suffered from the illusion of unanimity. Howard (2011, p.439) explains that a majority of the employees interpreted the silence of their co-workers as concurrence. They believed that there was unanimous support within the company to continue the fraud.
Mind-guards
Victims of groupthink appoint themselves as mind-guards. These are individuals who are self-appointed as guards to protect the group and the leader from adverse information that might destroy the satisfaction that they have shared concerning the morality and effectiveness of past decisions they have made. They perform several self-assigned tasks such as keeping the leader informed of all happenings within the group.
Solutions
Groups that are formed to enhance the decision-making process of an organisation must promote an environment of openness and trust among its members. The leadership must maintain a healthy atmosphere of divergent thinking where team members are encouraged to critique ideas and speak up their opinions without fear of being reprimanded. Groupthink symptoms could be solved by applying the following solutions. According to Vecchio (2008, p.44), the leader of a decision-making group plays a crucial role in ensuring that the groupthink symptoms are solved appropriately. He/she should assign each member of the team with the responsibility of an evaluator where they are encouraged to provide their objection and doubts in decisions made by the group. Furthermore, the leader should accept criticism of their judgments and encourage members to search for information on all aspects of a problem to detect issues that may remain unnoticed. According to Greitemeyer et al. (2009, p.642), process and task conflicts are healthy for teams as the minority dissent stimulates the consideration of more options. Therefore, it is important to encourage authentic dissent in groups particularly from the leadership who must establish strategies to protect the minority and alternative viewpoints.
Behl (2012, online)
recommends that organizations should establish outside policy-planning and evaluate groups that would work on one policy. However, each group operates under different leadership which prevents the insulation of an in-group. In addition, the group should invite outside experts to their meetings who will challenge the views of the members. Behl (2012) adds that when an expert is present, the team makes better decisions, especially where there are directive leaders. Diversity should be encouraged as it facilitates the performance of the group and reduces cohesiveness. Rink and Ellemers (2010, p.55) argue that reduced cohesiveness increases diverse perspectives as it will be difficult for group members to form homogeneous subgroups and there will be many sources of diversity within the team.
Conclusion
Decision-making is an essential organisational practice where a team is selected to gather, interpret and exchange information. The members then create and identify alternative courses of action by integrating the views, opinions, and perspectives of the participants. However, there are group pressures that may weaken the moral judgement, reality testing, and mental efficiency and lead to faulty decisions. Irving Janis introduced the term groupthink to describe the negative impact on effective decision-making as individuals within a cohesive in-group tend to seek concurrence. This paper has utilised the accounting fraud that occurred within WorldCom to understand the eight symptoms of groupthink. The irregularities at WorldCom reveal that the culture, group processes, and structure of the organisation led to groupthink which contributed to the fall of the company.
References
Behl, A. D. (2012, March). Groupthink: The Role of Leadership in Enhancing and Mitigating the Pitfall in Team Decision-Making Northwestern University | School of Education & Social Policy. Retrieved from https://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/masters-learning-and-organizational-change/knowledge-lens/stories/2012/groupthink-the-role-of-leadership-in-enhancing-and-mitigating-the-pitfall-in-team-decision-making.html. Accessed January 30, 2018.
Greitemeyer T., Schulz-Hardt S., & Frey D. (2009). The effects of authentic and contrived dissent on the escalation of commitment in group decision making. European Journal of Social Psychology. 39, 639-647.
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., Eden, J., & Cruz, M. G. (2016). Examining the Symptoms of Groupthink and Retrospective Sensemaking. Small Group Research. 37, 36-64.
Howard, A. (2011). Groupthink and Corporate Governance Reform: Changing the Formal and Informal Decisionmaking Processes of Corporate Boards.
Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal.
20, 425-457.
Janis, I. L. (2013). Groupthink psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, Wadsworth.
Rapoport, N. B., Van Niel, J. D., & Dharan, B. G. (2009). Enron and other corporate fiascos: the corporate scandal reader. New York, Thomson Reuters/Foundation Press.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2010). Benefiting from deep-level diversity: How congruence between knowledge and decision rules improves team decision making and team perceptions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 13, 345-359.
Sukthankar, G., & Sycara, K. (2010). Analyzing Team Decision-Making in Tactical Scenarios. The Computer Journal. 53, 503-512.
Vecchio, R. P. (2008). Leadership: understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organisations. Notre Dame, Ind, University of Notre Dame Press.
Xiao, L., & Eastmure, V. (2014). Information use in group decision making teams. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 51, 1-4.
