“Group Think,” Group Behavior
I first heard the term "group think" in a managerial class at the University of Iowa in 1990. At the time, I was surprised by two things: I had never heard the term "groupthink" before, despite years of studying psychology, and it finally explained why I was silent during meetings when I disagreed with the ideas presented by other participants.
The term "groupthink" was first coined a little over 50 years ago. Therefore, it took awhile for the term to make its way into classrooms.
There are various definitions of groupthink on the internet. This one is from Psychology Today:
. . . researchers have found that in a situation that can be characterized as groupthink, individuals tend to refrain from expressing doubts and judgments or disagreeing with the consensus. In the interest of making a decision that furthers their group cause, members may also ignore ethical or moral consequences. While it is often invoked at the level of geopolitics or within business organizations, groupthink can also refer to subtler processes of social or ideological conformity, such as participating in bullying or rationalizing a poor decision being made by one's friends.
Although they didn't call it "groupthink", the Founding Fathers certainly understood the negative effects of group dynamics. The insights within The Federalist Papers are timeless.
Federalist Paper #61 [paragraph 4]:*
. . . I’m talking about a uniform time for the election of federal Representatives. . . Currently, States hold elections at different times between March and November. If the House elections are held at different times, it would never be totally dissolved and remade. If an improper spirit took over the House of Representatives, as new members joined, they would probably be infected by the improper spirit. The mass would likely hold onto the improper spirit and gradually assimilate new members into itself. The older members will have an influence that few new members would have enough willpower to resist.
Federalist Paper #70 [22]:
. . . When power is placed in a [group] of men, a talented leader can easily get them to agree to a common enterprise. A small group is easier to abuse and more dangerous when abused, than a single man. One man can be closely watched and more easily suspected.
Federalist Papers Explain Group Behavior
When I first read the Papers I was surprised at how accurately they describe the negative effects of group behavior. With that in mind, I wondered how a “group” of people were able to draft our Constitution.
Federalist Paper #85[3]:
. . . Imperfect men can never create a perfect plan. Group discussions always include errors and prejudices, as well as good sense and wisdom, just like the people in the groups. The agreement that will make thirteen States into a union must be a compromise of many different interests. How can a perfect plan come from such materials?
Federalist Paper #37 [3-4]:
These people will not magnify the Constitution’s faults. They didn’t expect a faultless plan. The convention was fallible. They will keep in mind that they, themselves, are only men. They will not assume infallibility as they judge the fallible opinions of others. And they will make allowances for the difficulties the convention faced.
Individual Makes Better Decisions Than Group
For me, studying psychology seems rather pointless if it can’t explain some of the behaviors I’ve experienced. The fact that an “individual makes better decisions than a group” reminds me of an experience I had in a management class in 1990. (I returned to University of Iowa, College of Business to finish my last 2 semesters 20 years after I was “supposed” to graduate.)
As he handed out a sheet of paper to everyone, the professor said: “A plane goes down in a lake in northern Canada. It is slowly sinking into the lake. Here is a list of 50 items that are on the plane. Prioritize the order that the items should be recovered before the plane sinks.”
First, we each created our own list. Then he divided the class into groups of 4, and each group created a list. My priority list was the second most accurate (as defined by an expert) in the class; my group list ranked last in the class.
[I knew my group was in trouble when the other members insisted that water purification tablets should be the first priority. I couldn’t convince them that they were not needed in a northern Canadian lake. The expert list ranked them #50.]
In this situation, groupthink wasn’t the problem. The problem was that the young men in the group simply refused to listen to an older woman (me). I found this same problem in every group I was forced to be in during my last years at the UI.
Federalist Paper #15 [12]:
. . . Do groups of men act with more virtue than individuals? Observers of human behavior know that the opposite happens. An individual worries more about his reputation than that of his group, because blame for the detestable action of a group is divided among a number of people. A group of people is often poisoned by faction, pushing it into improper and excessive behavior that would embarrass the individuals.
The Constitution gives the President the power to pardon people. Some people believed that this power should be given to a committee or a group of people. Federalist Paper #74 [paragraph 3] explains that an individual often makes better decisions than a group of people.
[The President] is authorized to grant ‘reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Humanity and good policy dictate that the pardoning power should be available. Every country’s criminal code is very severe. Without the power to pardon cases of unfortunate guilt, justice would be too cruel.
Feelings of responsibility are stronger as fewer people are involved. Therefore, we may infer that a single man would most carefully study the motives that might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law. And one man is less likely to shelter a proper target of its vengeance. When the fate of a person depended on his sole fiat, he would be scrupulous and cautious. Equal caution, though of a different kind, would come from the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance.
On the other hand, men generally derive confidence from a group. A group of men with this power might often encourage each other’s inflexibility. A group might be less attuned to suspicious apprehensions or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. For these reasons, one man is a better dispenser of the government’s mercy than a group.
The President also makes appointments to offices. Although the Senate needs to approve many appointments, the President, alone, actually makes the appointments. This is another example of why an individual's decision is usually better than a group's decision.
Federalist Paper #76 [4-5]:
Because of the method for electing the President, he will probably be a man of abilities, at least respectable. Based on this, I’ll state this rule: One man of discernment does a better job analyzing the qualities needed for specific offices than a group of men of equal, or even superior, discernment.
One man will feel the full responsibility and a sense of duty. He will feel obligated to investigate the qualities required to fill the offices. And he will impartially prefer the persons who have the most qualifications.
He will have fewer personal attachments than a group of men, who each may have an equal number. He will be less likely to be misled by friendship. A group’s decision can be warped by diverse views, feelings, and interests. A single, well-directed man does not have as many distractions.
People become very passionate when they have to choose a person. Deep personal feelings can influence the choice. When a group of men appoint people to offices, all private and party friendships and animosities felt by the people in the group effects the choice. The choice will be a victory of one party over the other or a compromise between parties. The candidate’s merit will often not be considered.
The ability to unite the party’s votes will be more important than the person’s job qualifications. The choice will often be a compromise: ‘Give us the man we wish for this office and you can have the one you wish for that.’ This will usually be the bargain. Public good will rarely be the primary objective of either party victories or party negotiations.
*All quotes are from The Federalist Papers: Modern English Edition Two, Webster, 2008.