According to Crisp and Turner (2010), group polarization and groupthink are significant sources of problems in the decision making process of a group. This leads to decreased productivity of a group since group polarization causes members to make decisions that are extreme to the individuals’ initial inclination (Crisp & Turner2010). Group polarization results in dysfunctional decisions since individuals may not feel accountable for the action of the group as decisions are made by the group unlike what would have been the case if the decisions were to be made individually.
Groupthink is another aspect that leads to poor decision making within a group. Decisions are made on the basis of establishing and maintaining harmony and conformity in the group. Members desire to come to a consensus decision therefore avoid bringing up conflicting ideas that may bring about disharmony within the group. They therefore fail to consider any alternatives and members who may have a different opinion which could be more reasonable get to suppress it for the sake of the group’s conformity hence poor decision making.
Description of a Situation
I got to observe a situation where groupthink brought about negative consequences to a group. This happened where a political party lost an election due to the irrational decisions they made as a group. Through group polarization, the party ended up with manifestos that were extremely unrealistic and unachievable. This was due to lack of real debates, the strive to maintain conformity of the group, negative stereotyping of outsiders, the need to find quick solutions to complex problems and the tendency of members to repress doubt and contradictory information and disregarding dissenting opinions. Members also displayed an aspect of social loafing. This is a phenomenon where a person exerts less effort in the process of accomplishing a task when doing it collectively unlike if the person was doing the task individually (Klehe,Anderson & Hoefnagels 2007).
Moreover, members of a group display social loafing when they do not want to receive credit for success of the group or to avoid being blamed if in any case the group failed to accomplish its goals. This brought about negative consequences for the party in that it lost the election. The party also experienced disintegration due to the blame games that came as an aftermath for losing the election. Members blamed each other for losing the election and in the end, the party ended up disintegrated.
Alternative to Group Polarization
An alternative to group polarization and groupthink is inviting outside experts who do not need to consider the conformity of the group during the decision making process. This is through open leadership and a democratic group leader who fosters group cohesion. High group cohesion is beneficial and leads to better performance (Rovio, Eskola, Kozub, Duda &Lintunen2009). Open leadership allows members to air ideas, whether conflicting or not hence making reasonable decisions and improving group cohesion. In the situation above, the political party would have won the election if they had outside experts and a democratic leader who would have given the members a chance to express their opinions, in case they doubted the decisions the group made. Those who suppressed their conflicting opinions out of fear would have aired them out thereby creating a positive outcome (Rovio et al. 2009).
Conclusion
Group polarization and groupthink are major setbacks in the performance of a group. These are fostered by the need to maintain conformity in the group therefore resulting in irrational decisions that lead to underperformance of the group. Alternatives that can be put in place to counter these problems include open leadership and inviting outside experts during decision making hence making functional decisions leading to good performance of the group.
References
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2010). In Essential social psychology (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Klehe, U., Anderson, N., & Hoefnagels, E. A. (2007). Social facilitation and inhibition during maximum versus typical performance situations. Human Performance, 20(3), 223–239.
Rovio, E., Eskola, J., Kozub, S. A., Duda, J. L., & Lintunen, T. (2009). Can high group cohesion be harmful? A case study of a junior ice-hockey team. Small Group Research, 40(4), 421–435.
