Scribd
Upload
11 views9 pages

2021 Groupthinkwef

The document outlines various antecedent conditions and symptoms related to groupthink within organizations like the FAA and Boeing, including issues such as high cohesiveness, structural faults, and time pressures. It also proposes solutions to mitigate groupthink, such as assigning critical evaluator roles, inviting outside experts, and encouraging dissenting opinions. The focus is on improving decision-making processes by fostering an environment where diverse viewpoints are considered.

Uploaded by

Moe Aung
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views9 pages

2021 Groupthinkwef

The document outlines various antecedent conditions and symptoms related to groupthink within organizations like the FAA and Boeing, including issues such as high cohesiveness, structural faults, and time pressures. It also proposes solutions to mitigate groupthink, such as assigning critical evaluator roles, inviting outside experts, and encouraging dissenting opinions. The focus is on improving decision-making processes by fostering an environment where diverse viewpoints are considered.

Uploaded by

Moe Aung
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Antecedent Condition Organization (FAA or Boeing) Condition Exists?

(Y/N)
High group cohesiveness.

Structural faults (lack of impartial


leadership, lack of norms, homogeneity of
ideology

Situation context: time pressures, moral


dilemmas, recent failures, stressful external
threats
Fact or Evidence Discussion
Reference
Symptom Organization (FAA or Boeing) Symptom Exists? (Y/N)

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive


optimism and encouraging risk taking.

Unquestioned belief in the morality of the


group, causing members to ignore the
consequences of their actions.
Rationalizing warnings that might challenge
the group's assumptions.

Stereotyping those who are opposed to the


group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful,
impotent, or stupid.
Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from
the apparent group consensus.

Illusions of unanimity among group


members, silence is viewed as agreement.

Direct pressure to conform placed on any


member who questions the group, couched
in terms of "disloyalty"

Mindguards— self-appointed members who


shield the group from dissenting
information.

#VALUE!
Fact or Evidence Discussion
Reference
Solutions Organization (FAA or Boeing)

1. Leaders should assign each member the


role of "critical evaluator". This allows each
member to freely air objections and doubts.

2. Leaders should not express an opinion


when assigning a task to a group.

3. Leaders should absent themselves from


many of the group meetings to avoid
excessively influencing the outcome.

4. The organization should set up several


independent groups, working on the same
problem.
5. All effective alternatives should be
examined.

6. Each member should discuss the group's


ideas with trusted people outside of the
group.

7. The group should invite outside experts


into meetings. Group members should be
allowed to discuss with and question the
outside experts.

8. At least one group member should be


assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This
should be a different person for each
meeting.
Solution Addressed? (Y/N) Fact or Evidence
Reference Comment

You might also like