MAJORITY RULE

If you have ever gone along with a group’s bad decision to avoid making waves or being ostracised, you are probably a victim of groupthink. Here’s how to make your voice heard effectively.

The negative influence of groupthink.

The psychological phenomenon of ‘groupthink’ occurs when otherwise rational, compassionate and intelligent individuals are overpowered by peer pressure – and go along with some truly shocking decisions.

The concept has been around since Yale psychology professor Irving Janis used it in his 1972 book, Victims Of Groupthink. His work focused on questionable foreign policy decisions such as the Vietnam War, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Dissenters were ignored: catastrophic consequences followed.

Janis identified eight symptoms of groupthink. They include an illusion of invulnerability; stereotyping opponents; ‘mindguards’ who shield the group from opposing arguments or information; and the incorrect assumption that everyone in the group is in agreement. Participants in groupthink tend to often ignore risks, focus on a small number of goals and plough on past the opportunity to consider alternatives to their plan. In other words, the group becomes biased towards believing their own brilliance. Failure is simply not an option.

However, disasters happen. Coincidences happen. People and nature act in unpredictable ways. We face seemingly insurmountable challenges when forced to choose between a few bad options, each with potentially devastating consequences. We don’t have a crystal ball to foresee all the variables and their implications. Instead, we work through the problem, brainstorm solutions, argue over which one’s better, pick one and hope for the best. Sometimes, we choose the wrong option.

In extreme life-or-death situations where tough decisions need to be made, the normal rules of society can break down and morals can fly out the window. The 1954 book, Lord of the Flies comes to life, in which a pack mentality forms and atrocities such as torture and killing suddenly don’t seem so bad to the group.

So what are the warning signs that a group is dysfunctional and might make terrible decisions? Jolanda Jetten, professor of social psychology at the University of Queensland, emphasises that a group’s solidarity is not necessarily a bad sign.

“Cohesion in and of itself is not a problem,” she says. “It’s when there are group behaviours and norms that develop that are immoral; so lying, cheating or corrupt behaviours go unpunished and almost become part of what the group is.”

She cites the 2001 collapse of Enron as an example. The firm’s corporate culture was obsessed with making money at all costs and derided anyone who expressed concerns about their business practices as not being a “team player”. Eventually, this faulty reasoning led to financial trouble, the demise of the company and the imprisonment of several executives.

It’s important to note that groupthink doesn’t always result in a bad decision. Also, not all bad decisions arise from groupthink. Sure, a hasty, poor decision based on groupthink is a bad outcome, but paralysing indecision and inaction can be just as dangerous.

It’s fine to agree a large portion of the time, but if team members are reluctant to challenge obviously questionable decisions, this can indicate that a troubling group dynamic is forming.

“If people don’t speak up, that’s worrisome,” says Jetten. “It may be because they don’t feel it’s safe to speak up and because doing so would be immediately punished.”

“The opposite of a hero is not a villain, it’s a bystander.” MATT LANGDON

This is when extreme views can creep in and start to dominate thinking, potentially leading the group in horrifying directions.

Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo ran the controversial Stanford Prison Experiment from the psychology department’s basement in 1971. Twenty-four university students volunteered to assume roles of either guards or prisoners in a mock jail. The guards quickly became too invested in their play-acting, emotionally abusing the inmates. Professor Zimbardo’s then-girlfriend, Christina Maslach, threatened to break up with him if he didn’t end the experiment. The experiment only lasted six days. Two of the ‘prisoners’ had nervous breakdowns.

Over the years, the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment have been called into question, several experts arguing that the guards were coached to display cruel behaviour or received tacit approval through Zimbardo’s refusal to chasten them or intervene. Zimbardo responded by saying he explicitly told the guards they couldn’t hit the prisoners, but that they were allowed to induce negative emotions such as fear, boredom and powerlessness.

In 2004, disturbing photos emerged of the abuse Iraqi prisoners had suffered at the hands of American soldiers at Abu Ghraib. The situation seemed awfully familiar to Zimbardo, who was asked to be an expert witness at the trial.

In 2007, Zimbardo published The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil. In it, he examines what it takes for an otherwise good person to go bad. The answer, from his experience, is: surprisingly little. He argues that the basic need of humans to belong is a potentially corruptive force. Others can harness it in the form of peer pressure, but equally we put pressure on ourselves because we want to be liked and fear rejection. This impulse can disable our ability to display initiative and personal autonomy. Authorities don’t need to wield power through punishment and reward; they can merely entice us with the promise of acceptance and threaten us with rejection. They create a culture based on these subtle, indirect motivations, which are harder to challenge or disobey than clear rules and orders.

Matt Langdon, founder of the Hero Construction Company, says: “The opposite of a hero is not a villain, it’s a bystander.” The former camp counsellor runs children’s workshops on what it takes to be a hero; something he stresses is an ongoing choice to help out when needed rather than a one-time decision.

So what distinguishes those who step out of the crowd and help, while others stand by? Can it be learned? Or is it an inherent trait in some people?

Whistleblowers such as WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg – the latter the former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers about government cover-ups in the Vietnam War – are often portrayed in the media as menacing malcontents with an axe to grind. Undoubtedly, some are, but others draw attention to illegal, dishonest and dangerous behaviour of governments and large businesses. They rebel against groupthink and take their concerns public.

“It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower and people often do it because they can’t sit back and watch any more immoral behaviour happening within the group,” says Jetten. “They air the dirty laundry. That’s often what people are most angry about, even though the whistleblower may say, ‘Look, I really tried for years to fix things from within the group, but no-one was listening and this was the last resort.’”

Are these people heroes or villains? That’s often a matter of perspective, of how history treats them.

In private, people who challenge the established order in a groupthink situation risk punishment, derision and being accused of disloyalty. The stakes are higher if they take their concerns public and become a whistleblower. They could lose their job or face imprisonment, extradition and exile. Their character could be assassinated in the media. They could also endure threats to life and limb to both themselves and their family.

To avoid being dismissed or harassed, Jetten says the way you express yourself is of the utmost importance when expressing dissent within a group. Groups often don’t take kindly to outsiders telling them what they’re doing wrong. Anyone who hasn’t thoroughly proven their loyalty to the group can be viewed negatively, including newer or more junior members of the team as well as those who appear to have their own agenda. It’s vital to send the message that you are saying this because you care about the team and are expressing your opinion as an insider. “Whenever you provide a critique, you say ‘we’ – ‘I’m very worried about where we are going, what we are doing’ – so that you make it clear you’re saying this as a group member,” says Jetten. “Those subtle language cues can have a tremendous effect on how the criticism is received.”

Of course, you don’t need to butt heads with the rest of the group all the time. Most people pick their battles and save speaking up for issues that truly matter. Certain personalities relish the role of antagonist more than others and are more likely to raise issues. Also, you might not fulfil the same role in all groups. In one group, you might be a frequent voice of dissent. In another, perhaps you don’t feel as passionately about the topic being discussed, so you’re content to sit back. You might change roles within the same group on any given day as well.

The main factor is whether there’s a decision so worrying or repellent to your core values that your need to voice your opinion overrides your desire to fit in with the group.

“Some things are just so minor or you think, ‘Well, I don’t really care, it’s not important,’” says Jetten. “You’re quite happy to go along with the majority to keep the peace. [But] if it violates moral principles then people can get very upset about it and they have a strong need to speak up.”

Diversity can help inoculate against groupthink by enhancing creativity. If team members all come from similar backgrounds and think in much the same ways, they’re not likely to question or oppose each other often.

“A healthy group needs deviance to stay healthy and vibrant,” says Jetten. “We often think groups don’t want dissenters, but groups where there’s no-one disagreeing, they’re also very boring groups. You need someone at times who challenges you.”