SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 34
GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGB Press to advance  to next slide.
Introduction to Groupthink 2
3 Groupthink: Background Term from Yale social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972.  Researched why a team reaches an excellent decision one time, and a disastrous one the next.  Groupthink model designed to help teams prevent bad decisions.
Groupthink: Background con’d Participants have need for consensus. Alternatives not fully analyzed. Decision makers have desire to be an accepted member of a group.  4
5 Groupthink: 8 Symptoms A Highly Cohesive Group 1.	An illusion of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages extreme risk taking. Unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality. Members ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
6 Groupthink: 8 Symptoms con’t Closed-mindedness 3.	People rationalize in order to discount warnings or other information that might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions. 4.	Stereotyped views of others.
7 Groupthink: 8 Symptoms con’t Pressures Toward Uniformity 5.	Shared illusion of unity. 6.	Minimize the importance of counter-arguments. 7.	Direct pressure on any member who expresses arguments against the group.  8.	Members who protect the group from adverse information.
8 Part 2: NASA’s History
NASA’s Origins: The Space Race Begins 9 October 4, 1957: The Soviet Union launches Sputnik. October 1, 1958:  Congress creates NASA.
10 Project Mercury 1961-1963 1958:  Project Mercury initiated.  Mercury 7 astronauts signed-up. Alan Shepard: In space on May 5, 1961 for 15 min, 28 seconds.
President Kennedy Sets the Stage 11 May 25, 1961: President Kennedy initiated the Apollo program in a speech to Congress. September 12, 1962: Speech to Rice University.
12 Project Gemini 1962-1966
13 Apollo 1 Setback January 27, 1967:  Apollo 1 fire during launch simulation killed "Gus" Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee.   A review board formed. The board noted several organizational-related factors that contributed to the accident.
14 Apollo Program 1963-1972  December 21, 1968:  Apollo 8 circles the moon.  Astronauts read from the Book of Genesis on December 24th.
History Made: Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969 15
16 Apollo 13
Successes in the 1970s 17
The Shuttle Program Begins 18
19 The 1980s
20 The 1980s
21 The Challenger Disaster: January 28, 1986 Mission STS-51L
22 The Hubble Telescope Story
The 1990s and the ISS 23
24 The Columbia Disaster: February 1, 2003 Mission STS-107
25 Part 3: Lessons Learned
Evaluation of NASA’s Culture Culture of invulnerability, built upon technological successes.   26 Leadership traditionally based on technical people that were degreed in hard sciences, which created a culture based on common attributes.  Promoted “better, faster, cheaper” not “quality, risk, and safety”. Management had a pattern of ignoring or suppressing constructive conflict.  Management lost their ability to accept criticism, which led them to reject recommendations.
Evaluation of NASA’s Culture 27 Engineers felt they had to prove that situations were unsafe, rather than proving things were safe.   No consensus on the definition of risk. It is believed that the various project managers felt more accountable to their managers than to the overall shuttle program.   NASA managers evaded safety regulations in order to maintain the aggressive launch schedule.
Evaluation of Challenger Disaster Launch postponed 3 times. NASA fearful American public would regard agency as inept if delayed further.  28 Challenger launched at lowest temperature in shuttle program.   Morton Thiokol engineers argued they did not have enough data to determine if O-rings would properly work below 53°F.  Post-disaster analysis revealed probability of disaster > 99%. Both NASA managers and engineers knew about O-ring design flaw since 1977, but never addressed the issue. Poor communications were vague and open to interpretations.   The company stated that ‘‘lower temperatures are in the direction of badness for O-rings...”  Engineers at Rockwell International expressed concerns about ice buildup, but managers restated the concerns in a passive way, leading mission control to disregard the concerns.
Evaluation of Columbia Disaster Disaster tied to management not understanding the tradeoffs between the conflicting goals of cost, schedule, and safety.   29 Engineers knew the shuttle was being hit by foam on nearly every flight, but decided condition was of no immediate consequence, and might be a maintenance problem to be addressed at a later time.   Unfortunately, many of the checks-and-balances put in place after Challenger had been removed in the name of faster and cheaper.   On the mission’s 2nd day, engineers suspected there was damage to the orbiter. NASA managers decided to limit the investigation on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found.
Groupthink Symptoms Applied to Events Having a Highly Cohesive Group:  The illusion of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages extreme risk taking.  30 When engineers raised the possibility of catastrophic O-ring issues, a NASA manager nonchalantly pointed out that this risk was ‘‘true of every other flight we have had."   The O-ring seal is a critical failure point without backup.  A NASA manager testified ‘‘we were counting on the backup O-ring to be the sealing O-ring under the worst case conditions.”   “Knowing what I know now about gas entering the shuttle’s wing, do I believe the mission I was on was any more risky than I thought it was when I took off?  No.”  Astronaut Mary Ellen Weber, following May 2000 mission.
Groupthink Symptoms Applied to Events Hear no evil.  See no evil.  Speak no evil.   31 There is a shared illusion of unanimity because silence means there is consent. Pressuring People Towards Uniformity: In the Columbia disaster, the same engineers that identified the problem did not speak-up and express their concerns for fear of being ridiculed and losing their jobs. Pressure people who expresses counter-arguments.  Morton Thiokol’s Senior Vice President urged the Vice President of Engineering to ‘‘take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat."   Protect the group from adverse information and “troublesome” ideas.  Morton Thiokol’s expert on O-rings stated to the Rogers Commission that he ‘‘was not even asked to participate in giving input to the final decision.”
32 Preventing Groupthink Assign each member the role of “critical evaluator” with permission – and encouragement – to freely air objections and doubts.  Managers shouldn’t express opinions when assigning tasks.  Set up several independent groups to work on the same problem.  All effective alternatives should be openly examined.  Members should discuss ideas with trusted people outside of the group.  Invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.  At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's Advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.
33 Summary Mindset is to not rock the boat.  Group members avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.  Ideas are not critically analyzed because members want to minimize conflict. Individual doubts are set aside as few alternatives considered. Minimal or no re-examination of alternatives that may have been initially discarded. Expert opinions and “negative” information is rejected. In the end, groups make hasty, irrational decisions.
34 References Carveth, Rodney and Claire Ferraris.  NASA and the Columbia Disaster: Decision-making by groupthink?  2003, Association for Business Communication Annual Convention. Bond, Timothy; Robert Dimitroff; Lu Ann Schmidt.  Organizational Behavior and Disaster: A Study of Conflict at NASA.  June 2005.  Project Management Journal.   Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB).   Bazerman, Max and Dolly Chugh.  Decisions without blinders.  Harvard Business Review.  January 2006.

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

The fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising program
The fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising programThe fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising program
The fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising programBlue Canoe Philanthropy
 
Risk Assessment and Management
Risk Assessment and ManagementRisk Assessment and Management
Risk Assessment and ManagementIsuru Asiri
 
HR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINE
HR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINEHR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINE
HR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINEKamalesh S
 
Virgin America Marketing Plan
Virgin America Marketing PlanVirgin America Marketing Plan
Virgin America Marketing PlanAngela Romero
 
Group decision making
Group decision makingGroup decision making
Group decision makingKrishna Jith
 
Boeing against Airbus
Boeing against AirbusBoeing against Airbus
Boeing against AirbusRuhull
 
How Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challenger
How Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challengerHow Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challenger
How Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challengerShranik Jain
 
Case Study Analysis on General Electric
Case Study Analysis on General ElectricCase Study Analysis on General Electric
Case Study Analysis on General ElectricSubhi Pradhan
 
The Hidden Traps in Decision Making
The Hidden Traps in Decision MakingThe Hidden Traps in Decision Making
The Hidden Traps in Decision MakingAnkit Saxena
 
Boeing Company Presentation
Boeing Company PresentationBoeing Company Presentation
Boeing Company Presentationamineshinobie
 
Employee motivation
Employee motivationEmployee motivation
Employee motivationNits Kedia
 
General Electric (GE) Case Study
General Electric (GE) Case StudyGeneral Electric (GE) Case Study
General Electric (GE) Case StudyNabaraj Giri
 
Mobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WC
Mobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WCMobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WC
Mobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WCWyatt A. Chartrand
 

Mais procurados (20)

The fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising program
The fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising programThe fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising program
The fundraising audit: Looking under the hood of your fundraising program
 
Worldcom scandal
Worldcom scandalWorldcom scandal
Worldcom scandal
 
Risk Assessment and Management
Risk Assessment and ManagementRisk Assessment and Management
Risk Assessment and Management
 
HR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINE
HR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINEHR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINE
HR Analysis on SOUTHWEST AIRLINE
 
WorldCom Fraud
WorldCom FraudWorldCom Fraud
WorldCom Fraud
 
Boeing company
Boeing company Boeing company
Boeing company
 
Virgin America Marketing Plan
Virgin America Marketing PlanVirgin America Marketing Plan
Virgin America Marketing Plan
 
Terracog gps
Terracog gpsTerracog gps
Terracog gps
 
Group decision making
Group decision makingGroup decision making
Group decision making
 
Boeing against Airbus
Boeing against AirbusBoeing against Airbus
Boeing against Airbus
 
How Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challenger
How Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challengerHow Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challenger
How Groupthink becomes fiasco of space shuttle challenger
 
Case Study Analysis on General Electric
Case Study Analysis on General ElectricCase Study Analysis on General Electric
Case Study Analysis on General Electric
 
The Hidden Traps in Decision Making
The Hidden Traps in Decision MakingThe Hidden Traps in Decision Making
The Hidden Traps in Decision Making
 
Boeing Company Presentation
Boeing Company PresentationBoeing Company Presentation
Boeing Company Presentation
 
Employee motivation
Employee motivationEmployee motivation
Employee motivation
 
TerraCog GPS
TerraCog GPSTerraCog GPS
TerraCog GPS
 
General Electric (GE) Case Study
General Electric (GE) Case StudyGeneral Electric (GE) Case Study
General Electric (GE) Case Study
 
Worldcom Scandal
Worldcom  ScandalWorldcom  Scandal
Worldcom Scandal
 
Mobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WC
Mobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WCMobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WC
Mobileye Case Competition Presentation All Materials PDF_WC
 
wrld com ppt
wrld com pptwrld com ppt
wrld com ppt
 

Semelhante a Groupthink_lecutre_final

GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docx
GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docxGroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docx
GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docxshericehewat
 
CCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.ppt
CCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.pptCCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.ppt
CCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.pptshardacharanrathore
 
The Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docx
The Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docxThe Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docx
The Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docxmamanda2
 
Nasa tragedies and lessons
Nasa tragedies and lessonsNasa tragedies and lessons
Nasa tragedies and lessonspkmarvel
 
Ryschk wow
Ryschk wowRyschk wow
Ryschk wowNASAPMC
 
Ryschk wow
Ryschk wowRyschk wow
Ryschk wowNASAPMC
 
Due August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docx
Due August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docxDue August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docx
Due August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docxmadlynplamondon
 
Reality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster Revisited
Reality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster RevisitedReality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster Revisited
Reality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster RevisitedKurt D. Hamman
 
Engineering ethics aylin sahin2
Engineering ethics aylin sahin2Engineering ethics aylin sahin2
Engineering ethics aylin sahin2Aylin Sahin, PhD
 
Whistleblowingfinal.....
Whistleblowingfinal.....Whistleblowingfinal.....
Whistleblowingfinal.....humaapkeliye
 
Lessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docx
Lessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docxLessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docx
Lessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docxsmile790243
 
23 march 2012_risk philosophy
23 march 2012_risk philosophy23 march 2012_risk philosophy
23 march 2012_risk philosophyRahman Khatibi
 
APPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_web
APPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_webAPPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_web
APPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_webMarshall Alphonso
 
Columbia ccm assignment
Columbia ccm assignmentColumbia ccm assignment
Columbia ccm assignmentKavita Patil
 
Strong Angel III Final Report
Strong Angel III Final ReportStrong Angel III Final Report
Strong Angel III Final ReportDoug Hanchard
 
Decision making by objection Cuban missile
Decision making by objection Cuban missile Decision making by objection Cuban missile
Decision making by objection Cuban missile Patcharawan Ubonloet
 
Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdf
 Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdf Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdf
Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdfprakashudhwani
 

Semelhante a Groupthink_lecutre_final (20)

GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docx
GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docxGroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docx
GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGBPress to advance .docx
 
CCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.ppt
CCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.pptCCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.ppt
CCPS- Lessons From Serious Incidents.ppt
 
The Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docx
The Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docxThe Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docx
The Challenger Disaster A Case-study in Engineering Ethics.docx
 
Nasa tragedies and lessons
Nasa tragedies and lessonsNasa tragedies and lessons
Nasa tragedies and lessons
 
Ryschk wow
Ryschk wowRyschk wow
Ryschk wow
 
Ryschk wow
Ryschk wowRyschk wow
Ryschk wow
 
Due August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docx
Due August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docxDue August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docx
Due August 7,2019First, watch the video Personal Potential The.docx
 
Reality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster Revisited
Reality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster RevisitedReality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster Revisited
Reality and Nature . . . The Challenger Disaster Revisited
 
A Spiral Galaxy
A Spiral GalaxyA Spiral Galaxy
A Spiral Galaxy
 
Engineering ethics aylin sahin2
Engineering ethics aylin sahin2Engineering ethics aylin sahin2
Engineering ethics aylin sahin2
 
Whistleblowingfinal.....
Whistleblowingfinal.....Whistleblowingfinal.....
Whistleblowingfinal.....
 
Lessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docx
Lessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docxLessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docx
Lessons in Organizational Ethics fromthe Columbia Disaster.docx
 
23 march 2012_risk philosophy
23 march 2012_risk philosophy23 march 2012_risk philosophy
23 march 2012_risk philosophy
 
Whistleblowing
WhistleblowingWhistleblowing
Whistleblowing
 
APPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_web
APPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_webAPPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_web
APPENDIX_F_2005_TP_neo_Cassandra_web
 
Columbia ccm assignment
Columbia ccm assignmentColumbia ccm assignment
Columbia ccm assignment
 
Strong Angel III Final Report
Strong Angel III Final ReportStrong Angel III Final Report
Strong Angel III Final Report
 
Whistle Blower
Whistle BlowerWhistle Blower
Whistle Blower
 
Decision making by objection Cuban missile
Decision making by objection Cuban missile Decision making by objection Cuban missile
Decision making by objection Cuban missile
 
Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdf
 Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdf Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdf
Whistle-blowing Case Study The Challenger disaster On January 24, 19.pdf
 

Groupthink_lecutre_final

  • 1. GroupthinkSteve Shore, MBA, PMP, CSSGB Press to advance to next slide.
  • 3. 3 Groupthink: Background Term from Yale social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972. Researched why a team reaches an excellent decision one time, and a disastrous one the next. Groupthink model designed to help teams prevent bad decisions.
  • 4. Groupthink: Background con’d Participants have need for consensus. Alternatives not fully analyzed. Decision makers have desire to be an accepted member of a group. 4
  • 5. 5 Groupthink: 8 Symptoms A Highly Cohesive Group 1. An illusion of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages extreme risk taking. Unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality. Members ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
  • 6. 6 Groupthink: 8 Symptoms con’t Closed-mindedness 3. People rationalize in order to discount warnings or other information that might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions. 4. Stereotyped views of others.
  • 7. 7 Groupthink: 8 Symptoms con’t Pressures Toward Uniformity 5. Shared illusion of unity. 6. Minimize the importance of counter-arguments. 7. Direct pressure on any member who expresses arguments against the group. 8. Members who protect the group from adverse information.
  • 8. 8 Part 2: NASA’s History
  • 9. NASA’s Origins: The Space Race Begins 9 October 4, 1957: The Soviet Union launches Sputnik. October 1, 1958: Congress creates NASA.
  • 10. 10 Project Mercury 1961-1963 1958: Project Mercury initiated. Mercury 7 astronauts signed-up. Alan Shepard: In space on May 5, 1961 for 15 min, 28 seconds.
  • 11. President Kennedy Sets the Stage 11 May 25, 1961: President Kennedy initiated the Apollo program in a speech to Congress. September 12, 1962: Speech to Rice University.
  • 12. 12 Project Gemini 1962-1966
  • 13. 13 Apollo 1 Setback January 27, 1967: Apollo 1 fire during launch simulation killed "Gus" Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. A review board formed. The board noted several organizational-related factors that contributed to the accident.
  • 14. 14 Apollo Program 1963-1972 December 21, 1968: Apollo 8 circles the moon. Astronauts read from the Book of Genesis on December 24th.
  • 15. History Made: Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969 15
  • 17. Successes in the 1970s 17
  • 18. The Shuttle Program Begins 18
  • 21. 21 The Challenger Disaster: January 28, 1986 Mission STS-51L
  • 22. 22 The Hubble Telescope Story
  • 23. The 1990s and the ISS 23
  • 24. 24 The Columbia Disaster: February 1, 2003 Mission STS-107
  • 25. 25 Part 3: Lessons Learned
  • 26. Evaluation of NASA’s Culture Culture of invulnerability, built upon technological successes. 26 Leadership traditionally based on technical people that were degreed in hard sciences, which created a culture based on common attributes. Promoted “better, faster, cheaper” not “quality, risk, and safety”. Management had a pattern of ignoring or suppressing constructive conflict. Management lost their ability to accept criticism, which led them to reject recommendations.
  • 27. Evaluation of NASA’s Culture 27 Engineers felt they had to prove that situations were unsafe, rather than proving things were safe. No consensus on the definition of risk. It is believed that the various project managers felt more accountable to their managers than to the overall shuttle program. NASA managers evaded safety regulations in order to maintain the aggressive launch schedule.
  • 28. Evaluation of Challenger Disaster Launch postponed 3 times. NASA fearful American public would regard agency as inept if delayed further. 28 Challenger launched at lowest temperature in shuttle program. Morton Thiokol engineers argued they did not have enough data to determine if O-rings would properly work below 53°F. Post-disaster analysis revealed probability of disaster > 99%. Both NASA managers and engineers knew about O-ring design flaw since 1977, but never addressed the issue. Poor communications were vague and open to interpretations. The company stated that ‘‘lower temperatures are in the direction of badness for O-rings...” Engineers at Rockwell International expressed concerns about ice buildup, but managers restated the concerns in a passive way, leading mission control to disregard the concerns.
  • 29. Evaluation of Columbia Disaster Disaster tied to management not understanding the tradeoffs between the conflicting goals of cost, schedule, and safety. 29 Engineers knew the shuttle was being hit by foam on nearly every flight, but decided condition was of no immediate consequence, and might be a maintenance problem to be addressed at a later time. Unfortunately, many of the checks-and-balances put in place after Challenger had been removed in the name of faster and cheaper. On the mission’s 2nd day, engineers suspected there was damage to the orbiter. NASA managers decided to limit the investigation on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found.
  • 30. Groupthink Symptoms Applied to Events Having a Highly Cohesive Group: The illusion of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages extreme risk taking. 30 When engineers raised the possibility of catastrophic O-ring issues, a NASA manager nonchalantly pointed out that this risk was ‘‘true of every other flight we have had." The O-ring seal is a critical failure point without backup. A NASA manager testified ‘‘we were counting on the backup O-ring to be the sealing O-ring under the worst case conditions.” “Knowing what I know now about gas entering the shuttle’s wing, do I believe the mission I was on was any more risky than I thought it was when I took off? No.” Astronaut Mary Ellen Weber, following May 2000 mission.
  • 31. Groupthink Symptoms Applied to Events Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil. 31 There is a shared illusion of unanimity because silence means there is consent. Pressuring People Towards Uniformity: In the Columbia disaster, the same engineers that identified the problem did not speak-up and express their concerns for fear of being ridiculed and losing their jobs. Pressure people who expresses counter-arguments. Morton Thiokol’s Senior Vice President urged the Vice President of Engineering to ‘‘take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." Protect the group from adverse information and “troublesome” ideas. Morton Thiokol’s expert on O-rings stated to the Rogers Commission that he ‘‘was not even asked to participate in giving input to the final decision.”
  • 32. 32 Preventing Groupthink Assign each member the role of “critical evaluator” with permission – and encouragement – to freely air objections and doubts. Managers shouldn’t express opinions when assigning tasks. Set up several independent groups to work on the same problem. All effective alternatives should be openly examined. Members should discuss ideas with trusted people outside of the group. Invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's Advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.
  • 33. 33 Summary Mindset is to not rock the boat. Group members avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. Ideas are not critically analyzed because members want to minimize conflict. Individual doubts are set aside as few alternatives considered. Minimal or no re-examination of alternatives that may have been initially discarded. Expert opinions and “negative” information is rejected. In the end, groups make hasty, irrational decisions.
  • 34. 34 References Carveth, Rodney and Claire Ferraris. NASA and the Columbia Disaster: Decision-making by groupthink? 2003, Association for Business Communication Annual Convention. Bond, Timothy; Robert Dimitroff; Lu Ann Schmidt. Organizational Behavior and Disaster: A Study of Conflict at NASA. June 2005. Project Management Journal. Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). Bazerman, Max and Dolly Chugh. Decisions without blinders. Harvard Business Review. January 2006.