GROUPTHINK THEORY

Introduction 

In general, a theory is an abstract system of concepts with indications of their connections that aids us in understanding reality. According to Stephen Littlejohn and Karen Foss(2008), systematic observations fool this abstract system. According to  Jonathon H Turner (1986) defined theory is a process of making ideas which help us to understand how and why events occur’’.  A theory is a description of concepts as well as a statement of the relationship between or among them (Baldwin, Perry, and Moffitt, 2004). The theory is a speculative explanation devised to aid in the comprehension of some minor or huge aspect of the ‘reality’ that surrounds us. Theoretical nations should ideally be measurable, and statements should be testable, so they may be refuted ( Donohew and Palmgreen). A theory is a predefined concept.

The following characteristics and aspects can be used to describe or categorize theory such as the level of generality, components, and goals. The level of the generality of theories is one way to understand their differences. The degree of generality denotes how broadly the theory can be applied.  The three categories of the theory are Grand theory (universal), Mid-range theory ( moderately general), and narrow theory. Grand theory claims to be able to explain all communication behavior in a way that is universally true. Marxism is an example of grand theory outside of the discipline of communication. Aside from that, a mid-range theory, as opposed to a grand theory, explains the behavior of a specific group of people.

A narrow theory, on the other hand, attempts to explain a single aspect of a phenomenon, such as communication. This theory only applies to specific people in specific situations, such as the communication rules that apply when standing in an elevator. Theories are different in their level of generality due to their focus or what they attempt to explain. Some theories examine the entire communication process( Symbolic Interaction Theory), while others examine a specific aspect of the process such as a message or the sender( Rhetorical Theory). To understand the theory, we also need to understand the components of theories. Theories are made up of several basic components, the two most important of which are concepts and relationships. Concepts are that identify the most important components in a theory.

To comprehend the theory, we must understand the concept of theories. Concepts are words or terms that identify the most important components in a theory. A concept is defined as a mental image or idea that corresponds to a distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential characteristics. Concepts can be either nominal or real. Nominal concepts), such as democracy or love, are those that are not observed ( exists only in name). Personal rituals and spatial distance are examples of real concepts that can be observed. Cohesiveness is a concept in some of the theories that will be discussed  ( Groupthink). As you can see, ss theories are sometimes named after one of their key concepts,.

We also can additionally clarify the theory variable definition. Anything that varies or changes in value is referred to as a variable. A variable is anything that can take on different numerical or category values. Many concepts, as well as their definition and assumptions, are contained in theories. Relationships define how the idea is put together. By comprehending the purpose, we can also clarify the nation of theory. The purposes of theory can include an explanation, understanding, prediction, and social change in a broad, inclusive meaning.

Most theories have a moderate ability to generalize which is referred to as the mid-range. Furthermore, we can see that theories can be applied broadly generalized or more narrowly. It should be evident from this explanation of the definition of the theory that experience and theory are related, even though the experience is concrete and theory is abstract. Although some theories attempt to achieve all of these objectives, the majority of them focus on the objectives rather than the ordering. A conflict management theory, for example, may assist people to understand how to engage in conflict more constructively.

The term ‘’groupthink’’ refers to a method of deliberation used by group members when their need for unity outweighs their willingness to consider all options. Groupthink is when a group of people agrees on a plan of action despite the fact that evidence leads to a different path.People in this situation will go to any length to maintain good relations with their peers. 

Explanation about theory (what)

As we know, theory is a system of ideas used to explain something in a scientific way and may bring together more facts and hypotheses. Not only that, if the theory is true, scientists also can make a prediction based on what they observe. While in psychology, theories are usually used to give some idea to understand human behaviour, thought and emotion. So, the groupthink theory is a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for agreement in making decisions within a group. Poor decision making happens when a group cohesion is based on one opinion or personal attractiveness of group members. To make a better decision in a group we need to communicate with every member and agree with decisions which have been decided together. 

Irving Janis was the one who introduced the groupthink theory defined groupthink as "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." By this definition we know that groupthink can only happen when the group has a strong cohesiveness. Every member of the group needs to share a strong energy of “we-feeling” to show a strong sense of unity among the group. Having great teamwork can be wonderful things to happen for any organization. However, it may cause some inner problems. Some members in the group may oppose the decisions but usually will remain quiet to avoid any issue happening and keep the peace between them. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Of course groupthink may be good for people to collaborate but from a cooperation perspective, it can lead to a serious problem if this goes too far. In the end, the result will only cost destructive issues.

Research into the phenomenon of groupthink is a fundamental area of study that takes into account understanding how group processes influence the making of decisions. This includes the analysis of the conditions under which miscalculations; faulty information processing, inadequate surveys of alternatives, and other potentially avoided errors are most probable. The groupthink perspective is seen as consistent with some other contributions to the group literature. Interesting parallels between the groupthink and the brainstorming literature are noted. It is concluded that many of the issues raised by the groupthink model are worthy of further examination in a broad-based study of group decision processes. Decision-making processes do not always determine eventual outcomes. Not all bad decisions are necessarily the result of groupthink, nor do all cases of groupthink end up as failures. In certain contexts, groupthink may also positively enhance members’ confidence and speed up decision-making processes.

History of theory

    One of the most striking aspects of modern humanities arguments over theory at the time is the absence of even close agreement on what the objective of such theory may be and the language in which it has been or should be done. According to Terry Eagleton, the objective of theory is culture defined as the dialectical moment when meaning production meets social determination and its language is a type of Marxian social theory to which Eagleton has recently added some Aristotelian ballast. According to Robert Pippin, the goal of theory is to provide the conditions of knowledge as presented by Kant and later taken up in other domains and the language of theory is post-Kantian critical philosophy. Other commentators consider language, literature, or the mode of literary production to be the object of theory, an object that may be threatened by electronically mediated images and digitized communications, and locate theory's language, albeit in different forms, in the discourse of literary criticism. This kind is easily expandable. Habermas considers discourse, or the "ideal speech situation" to be the core theme of his theory, going into it in great depth in a post-Kantian social theory. What matters to Derrida is the liquefaction of organized meanings and structures carried out in Derrida's improvisation on the language of transcendental phenomenology.

    These disparities are big enough to jolt any calm analysis of theory's history. They have given rise to expansive and vehement apologetics in which a slew of mutually antagonistic dyads, the formal and the material, semiotic and economic, sociological and psychoanalytic, logic of difference and logic of society, fight for the privilege of foundational status or seek peace in an endless series of dialectical reconciliations. Of course, historical reflection on the moment of theory is possible from inside the arena of theoretical contestation, but only as philosophical history and historical hermeneutics. As a result, Eagleton contextualizes the 1960s "theory boom" in terms of culture's incorporation with late capitalism's production processes. This progression both elevates and protects cultural theorists' helplessness. That is, a tendency toward idealism, formalism, and relativism overlooks the material and economic spheres, giving birth to Richard Rorty rather than Vladimir Lenin. This history, on the other hand, is a pure projection of Eagleton's theoretical doctrine, which is his conception of culture as the intellect's attempt to think the forces that determine its thinking and, as a result, is doomed to defend a specific sectarian patch within the field of theoretical contestation.

    Rather than constructing a philosophical history that provides unifying conditions of possibility for theory, we should begin a history of theory by topicalizing the actuality of irresolvable disagreement between diverse interpretations of such circumstances. Some rather conflicting evidence is consistent with the observation that the theory boom began when a specific type of philosophical interrogation emerged within a wide range of disciplines, including linguistics, literary criticism, sociology, political economy, the "psy" disciplines, and even jurisprudence, where it took the form of a slew of related but rivalrous theoretical vernaculars. This exemplifies why starting a history of thinking by seeking to uncover its common object or shared language is pointless. This explains why it is pointless to begin a history of thinking by seeking to uncover its common object or shared language. Unlike natural scientific theories, the theory that formed in the humanities and social sciences in the 1960s was not distinguished by its target since it emerged in disciplines with widely divergent themes, such as linguistics and legal studies, literature, and anthropology. The investigation of economic production processes with the study of folktales. Furthermore, the theoretical vernaculars that emerged during this period differed widely, partly because of the university faculties where theorists were employed, but also because of distinct or just partially overlapping national intellectual environments. Thus, the Kant used by John Rawls to reconstruct American "rational choice" political science differs markedly from the post-Husserl Kant used by Jurgen Habermas to speed up his translation of German metaphysics into a communicational social theory. Similarly, while both British and French Marxists used Louis Althusser to counter their "humanist" forefathers, the Althusserianism that emerged from the attack on British romantic historicism (E. P. Thompson) differed significantly from the Althusserianism that emerged from the attack on French existentialist and Hegelian Marxism. Similarly, there are contrasts between literary structuralism committed to abolishing the peculiarly English phenomenon of "Leave" and one developed in the context of French phenomenology and philosophical hermeneutics.

    However, some opponents have argued that the contents of the theory are so diverse that the word is useless. However, from the standpoint of empirical intellectual history, the fact that this word, together with its cognate’s structuralism and poststructuralism, has been used to designate a succession of intellectual developments merits consideration. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, with selections ranging from Althusser and Barthes to Jakobson and Jameson, Kristeva and Lacan, and Saussure and Todorov, may be regarded as weighty proof of theory's nominalist existence, especially when combined with its omnibus counter text Theory's Empire, even if these texts also point to theory's natural home. The graduate program in American humanities. But, if not a single object or language, what is it about the many types of theories that have driven both proponents and adversaries to embrace a single label for them?

    To begin answering this question, we can argue that even though the multiple developments alluded to in the theory's moment are not linked by a common object or a single theoretical language, they can be regarded as sharing a common intellectual attitude or deportment, albeit to varying degrees. This attitude is skeptical of empirical experience in a Kantian sense, but also a priori formalisms that it perceives as precluding higher level "transcendental" experience, and hence cultivates openness to many forms of breakthrough experiences. It will be argued that this attitude is typical of a specific type of intellectual persona supported by a certain inner discipline and that providing an account of this persona and discipline is crucial to, but not exhaustive of, historical reflection on the moment of theory. However, our initial meeting with this attitude and its primary philosophical discourse will be contradictory. Because there will be an inescapable but ultimately beneficial confrontation with the concept that the history of theory is an impossible task.

Element of the theory

    Groupthink is a way of thinking that people use when agreement among members has become excessively important. Overemphasis on agreement among members tends to shut out realistic and logical thoughts of a problem or of a possible course of action. (Janis, 1983; Mullen, Tara, Salas & Driskell, 1994). There are 8 elements that can help people to recognize groupthink in the group they observe or participated in. (Janis, 1983; Richmond, McCroskey, & McCroskey, 2005; Schafer & Crichlow,1996).

    The first element of groupthink is the illusion of invulnerability. It happens when group members think the group and its members are invulnerable, that they are virtually beyond being harmed. The members are very self-confident and confident with the group's ability to make decisions. This will create excessive optimism that encourages the group member to take extreme risks. Also, allowing them to ignore the clear and analytical thinking for the group. For example, a company wants to sell broken plates which they thought were creative and fresh ideas without thinking the public thought about the product.

    The second element of groupthink is collective rationalization. Members create rationalizations to avoid dealing with warnings or threats. The members will discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. For instance, Sarah opposed the company's ideas to sell broken plates at first, but she changed her mind and rationalized to keep her position in the company.

    Another element of groupthink is belief in inherent morality. Victims of groupthink unquestionably believe in the inherent morality and trust in the rightness of their own group. This belief tends to ignore the ethical and moral consequences of their choices. The evidence that this symptom is at work is usually left unsaid negatively in the meeting. To give an example, companies push their belief to the staff that the broken plate business is not just weird but has its own sentiments to it.

    More than that, stereotyped views of out-groups are also one of groupthink elements. Stereotype definition is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Hence, stereotyped views of out-groups happen when group members make negative views of their ‘enemy’. For example, the company thought no other people would think creatively and smartly like them to produce a broken plate business.

    Next, the element of groupthink includes direct pressure on dissenters. Groupthink victims put direct pressure on any person who temporarily expresses doubts about the group's common illusions or questions the validity of arguments in support of a majority-favoured alternative policy. Group members will be under pressure not to express any arguments against any of the group’s views. To give an instance, the group leader insisted that the broken plates business is a good idea and the members just have not yet discovered its advantages.

    Furthermore, the element of groupthink also includes self-censorship. Groupthink victims avoid deviating from the apparent group consensus; they are silent about their concerns and even downplay the importance of their doubts. To give an example, Sarah fails to agree to the ideas of broken plates business because it is such a lame idea, but she never discusses her opinion to the other group members.

    Other than that, self-appointed ‘mindguards’ is also one of the groupthink elements. Groupthink victims sometimes appoint themselves as mindguards to protect the executive and their colleagues from adverse information, especially information that creates diversity of opinion which could break their mutual complacency about the effectiveness and morality of past decisions. For instance, Mark found a problem with the produce of broken plates, but he shuts his mouth so the business can be continued.

    The last element of groupthink is the illusion of unanimity. Group members believe that all members are in unanimous agreement, whether this is stated or not. This belief is encouraged by members censoring their own doubts and not allowing differences of opinion to be discussed. For example, the company launched the broken plates business hoping they will find their success because nothing can harm their business. 

How to apply Groupthink theory in a group?

Groupthink theory can be applied in a group by being committed to team goals. Being committed to team goals means that team members understand and agree to support team recommendations and decisions. Team members will know what they are supposed to accomplish if applying Groupthink theory in a group. Once team members determine what to achieve, they will do what they are supposed to do. Team members will understand that to achieve team goals, they should work together as a team. The keys to successful teamwork are communication, commitment, respect, accountability, delegate, support, and result. Improved bottom-line results are the most significant benefit of team commitment. Members of a committed team make decisions that benefit their teammates, team, and group. Collaboration on projects and at work frequently results in better ideas and better results. Retaining team members provides a larger collective knowledge base and lower costs.

Next, Groupthink theory can be applied in a group by practising relevant and useful skills. Team members that have relevant and useful skills are a capable individual. This is because they have the necessary skills such as communication, time management, problem solving, listening, critical thinking, collaboration and leadership. These necessary skills are essential to lead a successful team. Not denied anymore, these abilities will make team members achieve their desired goals. In addition, team members that have good personal characteristics will achieve excellence. There are six advantages of having a useful skill in a group. The first advantage is that team members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints. The second advantage is that team members can expand their vocabulary. The third advantage is that everyone on the team may learn from and teach each other. The fourth advantage is that team members can learn to deal with different personalities. The fifth advantage is that team members' talents can be utilised. The final advantage is that you can learn how to negotiate.

Also, Groupthink theory can be applied in a group by trusting group members. Team members who trust each other towards integrity, characteristics and abilities will achieve their consensus. Team members should maintain professional integrity for productivity, performance and reputation of that group. Next, team members should have at least seven characteristics for good team members. The characteristics are honest and straightforward, share the load, reliable, fair, compliment others’ skills, good communication skills and positive attitude. Because it creates a sense of safety, trust is crucial for a successful collaboration. When members of your team feel safe with one another, they are more willing to open up, take appropriate risks, and reveal vulnerabilities.

Besides, Groupthink theory can be applied in a group by showing union commitment. Team members should have a strong desire to remain a good team. Team members also should have a sense of loyalty. Loyalty can be nurtured by being supportive and generous, being honest and trustworthy and maintaining healthy boundaries. Union commitment can be nurtured by showing dedication towards team members to ensure team success. Dedicated team members have a deep understanding of the team goals. True commitment motivates and draws others. It demonstrates your conviction. Only if you believe in your cause will others believe in you. Commitment is perseverance with a goal in mind, and it distinguishes you as a leader worth following.

Groupthink theory also can be applied in a group by good communication. Good communication between team members will allow them to reach their goals. Team members will be able to convey messages to each other clearly in a state of readiness because of good communication between team members. This message includes non verbal and verbal messages. There is good feedback among team members to guide and correct any mistakes. Effective communication abilities provide advantages. The first advantage of successful communication is that it builds trust. The second advantage is that it promotes teamwork. The third advantage is improved relationships. Increased happiness and productivity are the fourth and final benefits. The fifth advantage is that it is possible to address the situation. The sixth advantage is that communication skills may be improved. Last but not least, group disagreement may be managed.

Next, Groupthink theory can be applied in a group by using negotiation skills. Team members should have at least negotiation skills to settle disputes and reach agreement between team members. A team that can be flexible and ongoing can adapt matters related to job descriptions, organizational rules and procedures and any formal documents to clarify member roles. Negotiating a choice that everyone in the group agrees on strengthens a team's cohesion and allows individual members to reflect on their own reasons. Successful negotiation gives the team confidence in their capacity to work together in the future.

 

Groupthink theory can be applied in a group by having the right leadership. Ability to encourage members to attain goals even under stressful times. Clarify objectives, highlight potential modifications, and boost members' confidence. Leaders not only control and direct, but also serve as coaches and facilitators. Leaders assist others and themselves in doing the right thing. They establish a course of action, develop an enthralling vision, and invent something new. Leadership is about determining where you need to go as a team or organisation in order to "win," and it is dynamic, exciting, and motivating. However, although leaders define the course, they must also employ management abilities to take their teams to the proper destination in a seamless and effective manner.

Last but not least, groupthink theory can be applied in a group by having internal and external support. The presence of an internal supporting environment, such as infrastructure facilities, training, and measurement mechanisms that members understand in order to gauge their total performance. There are five advantages to having internal assistance. The natural support system is the first advantage. The second advantage is the ability to share information. Talent development is the third advantage. The fourth advantage is that it promotes innovation. Employee happiness is the fifth benefit. External support refers to the resources made available to the team to guarantee that the task is completed correctly. There are five advantages to collaborating with external support. The first advantage is that you will receive assistance when you are in need. The second advantage is increased security. The third advantage is that there is no need for a large investment. Disaster recovery is the fourth advantage. The fifth advantage is that you will be able to obtain the appropriate technological solutions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, groupthink occurs when the members of the group place emphasis on everyone agreeing and feel threatened if they do not all agree on a certain action. This led to better options being overlooked and people overcoming their basic thoughts of providing solutions, critiques, or new opinions. This results in poor decision-making, unsatisfied goals, and poor problem-solving. It also normally happens when there is a strong sense of "we" in the group. In that particular case, people just want to be on good terms with their group regardless of the cost. In other words, groupthink consists of a strong, persuasive group leader, a high level of group cohesion, and intense pressure from the outside to make a good decision.

To summarize, there are eight elements of groupthink that we usually face in a group, such as the illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalization, belief in inherent morality, stereotyped views of out-groups, direct pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, self-appointed mindguards and illusion of unanimity. Groupthink can also be applied individually, in a group or even in an organization. 

As mentioned above, there are six ways to apply groupthink in a group, which include being committed to team goals, practising relevant and useful skills, trusting group members, showing union commitment, good communication, using negotiation skills, having the right leadership and good internal and external support.