Introduction
The power of groups in facilitating various outcomes has attracted many scholarly debates in contemporary contexts. This power emanates from a multiplicity of dynamics and concepts that play a significant role in deciding whether groups will have a positive or negative influence on members (Suhay, 2015). The present paper not only defines and describes the concepts of group polarization and groupthink, but also presents a real life scenario where groupthink led to poor decisions.
Description of Terms
Group polarization has been defined in the literature as the penchant of a group to make decisions that appear more severe or exaggerated than the initial inclination of its members, while groupthink is used to denote a premature or untimely striving by group members for an undisputed conformity to a particular course of action (Suhay, 2015). Group polarization is caused by factors such as the predisposition of members to abide by the predominant perspective, the desire of group members to appear knowledgeable and intelligent, social comparison, social categorization, and social pressure (Myers, 2009).
The precursors of groupthink include “high group cohesiveness, a stressful situation, and a variety of structural or administrative factors such as insulation of the group, promotional leadership, lack of methodical decision-making procedures, and lack of variety among members’ values and perspectives” (Ahlfinger & Esser, 2001, pp. 31-32). Group polarization and groupthink often lead to negative outcomes in terms of poor decision making, self-censorship, and entrenchment of stereotypical perspectives.
Real Life Scenario
At a personal level, I have experienced nursing professionals engaging in a strike action due to issues such as unpaid allowances, poor work environments, discrimination, and high workloads. The decision to go on strike was formulated through the precepts of groupthink as nurses strived for unanimous agreement to down their tools in spite of the far-reaching health consequences associated with such a decision.
These nurses did not make necessary considerations about the advantages and disadvantages of the various decision options that were available to them, hence made an undesirable decision to engage in industrial action as the only way to solve their complaints. Here, the strike decision was undesirable as it led to unnecessary loss of innocent lives due to lack of care.
An in-depth analysis of this scenario demonstrates the hallmarks of groupthink, particularly in terms of the nurses’ conviction that their group (union) was invulnerable and a misplaced predisposition that they were striking for a just cause. Additionally, they demonstrated the characteristic of close-mindedness by virtue of members refusing to question the implications of going on strike. Available literature demonstrates that “group members collectively rationalize away information which is inconsistent with their preferred position and stereotype enemies as weak or stupid” (Ahlfinger & Esser, 2001, p. 32).
This characteristic was evident in the case scenario as nurses and their leaders used various communication channels to downgrade disparate perspectives and attack professionals who opposed the strike. There was also pressure from their leaders to maintain uniformity in outlining their demands, meaning that nursing professionals who expressed a dissenting opinion were threatened with deregistration from the union. Finally, it was clear that some senior nursing professionals within the union had assumed the role of mindguards to safeguard the group from disintegration due to external pressure (Myers, 2009).
Conclusion
From the description and analysis of the real life scenario, it can be concluded that groupthink is one of the approaches that could be used to bind groups in the pursuit of common goals or objectives. However, as demonstrated in the discussion, this predisposition often leads to poor group outcomes.
References
Ahlfinger, N.R., & Esser, J.K. (2001). Testing the groupthink model: Effects of promotional leadership and conformity predisposition. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(1), 31-42.
Myers, D. (2009). Social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Suhay, E. (2015). Explaining group influence: The role of identity and emotion in political conformity and polarization. Political Behavior, 37(1), 221-251.