Be aware of groupthink and stop it.

How can groups make good decisions? That's the question with which Mariano Sigman and Dan Ariely began their research in 2017. And that's the question on my mind, too. I work on all kinds of digital teams, with different disciplines, backgrounds, organizational structures and group sizes. All these teams make daily choices about what the website should look like. But how do you make sure the right decisions are made under the influence of all the possible influencers of group decision making? 

In this article, I talk about how easily groupthink creeps into the decision-making process, affects it and how you could prevent groupthink.

Do you know more together than alone?

Sigman and Ariely (2017) conducted research on decision making in groups. In doing so, they distinguished between (1) answering factual questions and (2) determining whether a moral dilemma is acceptable or not. Both studies required subjects to first determine their own answer/position and then debate with the group to reach a decision. 

The first experiment shows that groups are smarter than the individual when it comes to answering factual questions, such as: ‘How high is the Eiffel Tower?’ and ‘How many times does the word Yesterday appear in the Beatles’ song of the same name?. 

But what about determining whether a moral dilemma is acceptable or not; after all, there is no truth to be determined here. Subjects were presented with a dilemma and had to determine on a scale of 1 - 10 to what extent they found the situation described acceptable. In this second experiment, it emerged that despite differing opinions, all groups were able to reach consensus during the debate. The groups achieved consensus by giving more weight to voices in the middle where extremes were ignored. In short, groupthink seemed to occur here (Sigman et al., 2019).

More brains, more brainpower?

You would think that groups are smarter than individuals. More people = is more brains = is more brainpower, right? As it turns out, this is not always the case. Groups are smart when individuals can think independently, exchange knowledge, improve each other and come up with new ideas. But group wisdom quickly deteriorates if there is too much uniformity or too much pressure from above (the hippos). This causes individual group members' ideas to be replaced by ideas that fit the group's beliefs and norms, or in other words, decisions are made based on group thinking (Janis, 1991 & Sigman et al., 2019). 

Groupthink is an unconscious process that develops the longer a group is together. In this case, group members are often strikingly similar in their beliefs, attitudes, values and also behavior. This leads to a strong group feeling (Remmerswaal, 2011). This is something we sometimes consciously create to improve mutual cooperation. Companies increase the we-feeling by undertaking team building activities, organizing get-togethers and by regularly sharing visions, core qualities and goals. The downside of this is that it increases the likelihood of groupthink. 

In groupthink, the individual judgment of group members is negated by group norms. We assume the available information and forget to explore alternatives (Janis, 1991 & Remmerswaal, 2011). This does not improve our decision-making. The danger of groupthink is: 

• That we often overestimate the strength of our group;
• no longer open to another opinion; 
• less easily criticize the group view;
• suffer from tunnel vision, so that all new decisions will be consistent with choices made previously. 

Give innovation a chance!

In Sigman and Ariely's (2017) research, we see that in situations where there is no truth, groupthink leads to a kind of averaging. This is not good for the creativity and innovation that many digital teams seek. It is a shame if these teams, subject to groupthink, come to little innovation. But how often do you sit in meetings where team members give their opinions about the website and what could be improved. Identifiable by: ‘I think’, ‘I think’ and ‘my gut says’. And where do these kinds of discussions often lead? Right, some kind of compromise that no one is happy with. Or nothing at all, a decision that is postponed. 

According to the literature (Janis, 1991 & Remmerswaal, 2011), there are a number of things you can do to prevent groupthink. And as it turns out, the composition of many digital teams in which I work have a number of characteristics and habits that could prevent groupthink.

Here are some tips: 

1. Create a team consisting of different disciplines and clear roles. This makes group members less alike. Each discipline views the Web site from its own point of view. By emphasizing these individual qualities, you create more room for a divergent point of view.

2. Involve people from outside the team. Do user research, surveys, polls and ask colleagues who have little to do with the website. Really bringing the fresh air of these outsiders into the decision-making process can reduce the likelihood of groupthink.

3. Last and most important: A digital team can find out the truth! A digital team often has the ability to A/B test. And let an A/B test provide the answer to the question; is our optimization indeed an improvement for the website or not? By A/B testing choices, you allow data decide instead of the group.

The devil's advocate

It is very important to be aware of groupthink so that you can do something about it as a team. With this article, I hope to create this awareness. Be aware that there is a good chance that this is also going on in your team. Take advantage of the cleverness of the group, let individuals think independently, let them exchange knowledge, let them improve each other and let them come up with new ideas. Be the devil's advocate and keep or start A/B testing. Make data stronger than group thinking. That's how you make the best decisions as a group!  

Could you use some help with this? Ask your question via our contact form. We would love to help you!  

References:

• Janis, I. (1991). Groupthink. In E. Griffin (Ed.) A First Look at Communication Theory (pp. 235 - 246). New York: McGrawHill.
• Remmerswaal, J. (2011). Handbook of group dynamics. Boom Nelissen, Amsterdam. 
• Sigman. M., Ariely, D., Garbulsky, G., Gonzalez, P. A., Garrido, J. M., Heduan, F. A., & Navajas, J. (2019). Reaching Consensus in Polarized Moral Debates. Current Biology, 29 4124 - 4129.