Gandirea de grup este un termen prin care se atrage atentia asupra mecanismelor psihologice si sociale prin care grupul se izoleaza de mediul extern. Informatia provenita din mediul extern este filtrata si redata distorsionat in interiorul grupului.Deciziile care se iau pe baza unor astfel de informatii sunt in mod evident gresite.In interiorul grupuluide regula totul este roz sau cel putin conform convingerilor membrilor grupului.Uneori gandirea de grup este o forma de manipulare a liderului alteori este impusa inconstient de acesta. Intr-un climat de excesiva autoritate membrii grupului ajung sa fie apreciati datotita obedientei. In acest context o cale sigura spre beneficiile asociate aprecierii sefului o constituie deprinderea de a-i spune acestuia ceea ce vrea sa auda chiar daca textul nu are legatura cu realitatea.Cultul personalitatii este insotit intodeauna de manifestarea gandirii de grup. Intalnim acest cancer al personalitatii umane peste tot: in secte religioase, in medii cu infractionalitate ridicata coagulate in grupuri pe langa lideri excesiv de autoritari dar si mult mai aproape de noi in institutii, in diverse organizatii economice sau non profit poate in unele partide etc, etcGandirea de grup este in mod paradoxal destul de raspandita si poate tocmai de aceea uneori este mai greu de depistat de persoane neavizate. Gandirea de grup este la originea foarte multor esecuri.Daca spui cuiva ca ai depistat ca in grupul din care face parte se practica o viguroasa gandire de grup in forma pura iar el se bucura sincer ai o dovada destul de clara a ceea ce in realitate se intampla acolo si o masura exacta a nivelului de performanta de care acel grup este capabil.Pe de alta parte, in contrast cu gandirea de grup,brain stormingul, gandirea laterala, sondajele de opinie sunt concepte care exploreaza noul care incearca sa forteze progresul punand in valoare experienta, perceptiile individuale si chiar sclipirile de care mintea umana este capabila daca este pusa intr-un context favorabil generarii de idei.

Deciziile de grupGndirea de grup a fost studiat de-a lungul timpului de muli autori, Gustave Le Bon structurnd n Psihologia mulimilor cel mai bine caracteristicile acesteui tip de gndire.n cadrul gndirii de grup membrii sunt tentai s ignore deciziile ce pot crea dispute, doar pentru a menine coeziunea grupului. n cadrul deciziilor de grup pot exista i avantaje i dezavantaje.Avantaje: - pot fi folosite mai multe informaii i cunotine.- pot aprea mai multe variante, care nu ar fi observate de o singur persoan.- poate aprea o mai bun nelegere sau acceptare a deciziei.- membrii grupului i dezvolt abilitile pentru viitor.Dezavantaje:- necesit mai mult timp.- nenelegerile pot ntrzia deciziile.- discuia poate fi monopolizat de o singur persoan.- gndirea de grup se poate centra mai mult pe realizarea consensului dect pe luarea deciziei.n cazul deciziilor neprogramate luate n grup s-au observat urmtoarele: n stabilirea obiectivelor, grupurile sunt superioare indivizilor datorit volumului mare de informaii. n identificarea alternativelor eforturile individuale ale membrilor grupului sunt necesare pentru a asigura o cercetare n domenii diferite. n evaluarea alternativelor raionamentul colectiv e superior celui individual. n alegerea celei mai bune alternative, datorit dorinei de a realiza consensul, grupul e tentat s accepte un grad mai mare de risc, comparabil cu decidentul individual. implementarea se realizeaz de obicei de ctre manageri individuali.

Term Papers and Free Essays

Top of FormBrowse Essays

Bottom of FormRead full version essay Groupthink GroupthinkPrint version essay is available for you! You can search Free Term Papers and College Essay Examples written by students!.Join Essays24.com and get instant access to Groupthink and over 30,000 other Papers and EssaysCategory:BusinessAutor:anton 17 April 2011Words:1704|Pages:7GroupthinkThe Challenger space shuttle explosion. The Bay of Pigs invasion. The Korean War debacle (Janis 1-28). These are examples of situations where group communication failed. Group communication involves a shared identity among three or more people, a considerable amount of interaction among these people, and a high level of interdependence between everyone involved (Trenholm 196-97). It is essential to understand group dynamics for a variety of reasons. Everyone participates in groups throughout the course of a lifetime, and these groups are often very goal-oriented. The business community, non-profit organizations, and town governments all use groups to make decisions. Sometimes a condition known as Groupthink can occur in groups that are extremely task-oriented and goal-driven. Groupthink is as "a mode of thinking people engage in when cohesiveness is high" (Blumberg and Golembiewski 134). Groupthink leads to poor decision making and results in a lack of creativity. Although Groupthink has been studied extensively, many people are unaware of its dynamics and the consequences that they might induce. This paper was designed to raise awareness about Groupthink and to provide some suggestions that can help task-oriented groups avoid this condition. To understand Groupthink it is essential to have a basic familiarity with group communication dynamics. Once this is accomplished some symptoms of Groupthink will be explored and some solutions will be offered. Lots of work has been done on the subject of Groupthink, but the most authoritative documentation on the subject can be discovered in the works of the founder of the concept, Irving Janis. Janis, in his book Groupthink, defines the terms involved and presents examples. Beyond Groupthink is a text written by Eric Stern et al. that deals with Groupthink in small groups. The authors believe that a certain amount of Groupthink can be beneficial in small groups. Articles involving Groupthink have also appeared in the Wall Street Journal and various other publications. Goal-oriented groups consist of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, have specific performance goals, share a common working approach, and hold mutual accountability (Wertheim 2). These types of groups are used when there are complex problems to be solved, important situations to work through, or uncertain conditions. Groups function best when there are no immediate time pressures (Wertheim 2). Groups are successful because the group members bring diverse ideas, the collective knowledge of everyone is significant, and groups tend to be focused (Wertheim 2). There are certain situations which call for the use of groups. Groups can be beneficial when communication between departments is necessary in a business setting or when the consent of many people is required (Wertheim 3). Individuals can also benefit from group participation. Many people who work in groups are able to learn new skills, take risks, get feedback, and discover personal strengths and weaknesses (Wertheim 3). Groups must accomplish tasks that individuals cannot. This is the primary function of groups. Effective groups consist of committed members who are willing to take accountability for the actions of the group (Wertheim 3-4). At Northeastern University an academic program has been developed to facilitate group communication. The University believes that effective groups are characterized by a sense of urgency and direction, a following of a set of rules, understanding of what the problem or issue is that needs to be solved, a shared sense of leadership, an ability to brainstorm, and a cohesive climate (Wertheim 4). Effective groups need to have clear goals, mutual trust among all participants, accountability shared by everyone, external support, and training (Wertheim 4-5). Irving Janis did lots of work in the area of group communication. He wondered why intelligent groups of people sometimes made decisions that led to disastrous results. Janis focused on the political arena. He studied The Bay of Pigs conflict, The Korean War, Pearl Harbor, The conflict in Vietnam, The Cuban Missile Crisis, makings of The Marshall Plan, and Watergate (Janis 9-13). Janis was puzzled by the inability of very intelligent people to make sound decisions. His answer was a condition he termed Groupthink. Janis defines Groupthink as a "a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action" (Janis 9). Janis further states that "Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures" (Janis 9). Groupthink can lead to bad judgments and decisions being made. It serves as a simple way to deal with difficult issues. The symptoms of Groupthink are clear. The "illusion of invulnerability" happens when a group thinks that they cannot go wrong. Confidence among the members of the group is remarkably high and is reflected in the decisions that they make (Keil 1). A "belief in inherent morality of the group" occurs when the group thinks tremendously of their morality. The group believes that it is doing the right thing in all circumstances. "Collective rationalization" is another symptom of Groupthink. Groups who experience this believe that nothing can be wrong with their plan even if there is significant evidence to prove otherwise (Keil 2). A lack of creativity and a disregard for others' options is a characteristic of groups with "out-group stereotypes." Groups often pay little attention to what outsiders have to say, and this can be detrimental (Keil 2). "Self-censorship" occurs when group members don't share their ideas with the rest of the group because of fear of being rejected (Keil 2). The "illusion of unanimity" explains that silence can often be interpreted as acceptance. All of these are symptoms of Groupthink. If one or more of these are commonplace in a particular group, change must occur. Janis offers many suggestion to help prevent Groupthink. An easy answer is to put one person in charge of making all decisions and dealing with problems. This is not desirable in most cases, however (Janis 260-61). Groups are often able to accomplish tasks more rapidly and precisely than individuals can (Cartwright and Zander 56-57). The distribution of power in a group usually assures that no single person is able to take control. The plan of one person is more likely to be flawed than the plan of a group. More people inputting their opinion will help the group formulate a creative and complete plan. One way of preventing Groupthink is to make each member of the group a "critical evaluator" (Janis 262). Group members will attempt to find problems in group solutions by evaluating them individually. The leader must accept criticism if this is to work (Janis 262). But making each member of the group analyze solutions individually is problematic. Group members can spend too much time debating when there is an important deadline. Feelings can be hurt when the ideas of individual group members are criticized. Some group members may not have the skills to think critically about the presented solutions (Janis 262-63). Leaders who assign tasks to a group must be impartial and must not lead the group to believe that a certain outcome is expected (Janis 263). Group members will not attempt to conform to beliefs of the leadership if they are unsure of what the leader wants. Problems arise because the leader often feels that there is no centralized control within the group. Many different groups can work on the same problem under separate leaders (Janis 264). Every group would come up with different ideas, and the pressure to conform is not as great. In some instances security can be a problem. Information is more likely to leak out if more people are aware of the information. Problems also arise when a group assumes that another group will examine the pieces to the solution that have been missed. It is much easier to allow someone else to complete the task (Janis 264-65). When only one group is working on a particular problem this doesn't happen. Groups should divide into two or more subgroups occasionally (Janis 265). Each group should be led by a different chairperson. Both groups can eventually come together and discuss ideas. Groups that do this are less likely to be locked into one solution. Outside experts can be brought in to observe the group functioning (Janis 266). The experts should have the ability to question the decisions of the group. The experts need to be very qualified and skilled in their ability to sort through and analyze solutions of the group. The experts must also be able to criticize the group in a fashion that will not turn the group away from the expert. Good communication skills are essential. It is important that experts become a part of the group before a general consensus is reached among all group members (Janis 266). Every group should include a specific member who has the job of playing "devil's advocate." This person should seriously question much of what the group members say. The "devil's advocate" must be willing to vocally share his ideas with the rest of the group (Janis 267). This strategy will force the group to take a second look at every decision that is made. The "devil's advocate" of the group must be taken seriously and be allowed to speak at will if this strategy is to be effective. Having been a part of many groups myself, I believe that the best way to avoid Groupthink is to have an understanding and awareness of it. Groups that constantly question decisions are likely to never encounter Groupthink. Groups are useful and necessary in many situations. They often solve problems that individuals cannot. Groupthink can limit the value of groups. Groupthink problems can be recognized by identifying a set of characteristics including an illusion of invulnerability, self-censorship, and others. Janis recommends many strategies for avoiding Groupthink. Groups can assign the role of critical evaluator to each member, divide into subgroups, invite experts to sit in on meetings, and so on. Groupthink is a problem that can have destructive consequences. If group members are aware of Groupthink and are constantly checking for it the damaging effects of this condition can be avoided. This paper was written by Andy (http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/essays.htm)

Read Full Essay

Groupthink Essay.

Groupthink is a concept that was identified by scholar Irving Janis(1972) and which refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Those associated to groupthink try to minimize conflict by reaching a consensus decision without taking a critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. They resort to uncalled for decisions at the expense of quality and consensus decisions. Groiupthink negatively impacts in any business in terms of creativity, uniqueness, and even independent thinking.While many people associate groupthink to lost business values, but under certain context, groupthink is helpful in improving efficiency as well as decision making. It influences a number of fields such as communications, social psychology, management and information technology. According to Janis, groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when members striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative course of action.But what really causes groupthink? According to Janis, there are three major causes of groupthink. These include the following: High group cohesiveness Structural faults, which includes lack of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, and insulation of the group. Situation context, including recent failures, moral dilemmas, excessive difficulty in decision making process, as well as stressful external threats.. However it is important to note that in as much the above highlighted reasons are a major associate of groupthink, they are not always present every time groupthink is occurring. According to Janis, cohesiveness is the major prevelence whenever groupthink occurred. He however believes that high cohesiveness would not always lead to groupthink. It has been observed that a very cohesive group always abides to all social norms, so what leads to groupthink in such a case depends on what the group norms areHow can an individual ascertain whether he or she is suffering from groupthink? According to Janis, there are major symptoms of groupthink:1.Overestimations of the group.This is mostly associated with power and morality. It is a case where an individual expresses excessive optimism and risk taking. In other words, it called the illusions of invulnerability. Believing in yourself too much to the extent of making false decisions.2. Closed-mindednessThis involves rationalizing warnings that might pose challenges to the groups assumptions. On the other hand, it also involves stereotyping those who are opposed to group on a negative manner, like being weak, spiteful or stupid.3. The third symptom is pressure towards uniformity.This involves coming up with ideas that do not match the general consensus that had been reached by the group. It also involves illussions of unanimity among members. Deciding to remain silence while difficult decisions are make could lead to groupthink as the other members could be of the opinion that you share the same sentiments with them. One could also be on a mission to shield other members from expressing their opinions.These symptoms lead to disasterous groupthink, which eventually lead to defective decision making. Groupthink could lead to a number of things including among others, poor information search, failure to examine risks, failure to work out contigency plan, and incompetence survey of alternatives.To prevent groupthink, Janis suggested that all effective evaluations should be examined, while organizations should also form independent groups to work on the same projects. Besides these, he also proposed that members should discuss group issues with only trusted people outside the group. When all the above are followed to the latter, groupthink will be a thing of the past in any business set up.