Author: Manu Steens
In this article I give my personal
opinion, not that of any organization.
This article is inspired by “Chapter
10 – Fairness, Diversity, Groupthink and Peer Effects: Why Other People Are
Important to Our Risky Decisions” from the book ‘The Ten Commandments of
Risk Leadership – A Behavioral Guide on Strategic Risk Management’ by Annette
Hofmann. She gives the following law of
great diversity with defined rules for communication and collaboration make
Research shows that teams need
collaborative assignments/tasks, known rewards, and defined objectives to have
a psychological sense of security and to promote productivity. Conflict can be
good. If we aim for a good decision-making process, a diverse team with
specific communication and cooperation rules is needed.
How does this relate to pure
camaraderie? The first question is: what do we understand by camaraderie?
At https://www.vertalen.nu/betekenis/en/camaraderie , the
term is defined as:
quality of affording easy familiarity and sociability”
In my ideal image of a group of
comrades, everyone is equal. It is seen
that when they want to organize
something among comrades, they looks at the natural leader. And therein lies a hidden dangerous factor in
the behavior, namely groupthink.
The original description of
groupthink is by Janis (1991):
‘A mode of thinking that people
engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’
strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise
alternative courses of action.’
It occurs when certain antecedent conditions
(symptoms of groupthink) and a defective decision-making process are present.
The most important antecedent
condition is a ‘cohesive group’. A similar other is isolation of the group. In
both cases additional opinions and advice from third parties cannot end up in
the group where they need to be. And are therefore not considered.
In addition, the attitude of the
group leader is important. Especially when he selectively favors people in
their opinion (often his own). Or when the group is homogeneously composed of
A third antecedent condition refers
to provocative situational contexts. For example, in case of extreme time
pressure, one chooses the leader’s solution, because one sees no other way out
or considers nothing else as realistically feasible.
In addition, members with low
self-esteem like to seek confirmation within a group and are averse to
contradicting others (with group consensus).
Complex and moral conflicts can also
affect an individual.
Symptoms of striving for unanimity
- Illusion of being invulnerable.
- An inflated level of optimism.
- Increased willingness to take risks.
- Blindness to warning signs and impending failure.
- The belief that you are unstoppable.
- The conviction of moral superiority.
- Stereotyping of other groups.
- The conviction of superior intelligence.
- Considering negotiation with other groups futile because
the other group is seen as incompetent and weak.
- Underestimating the opponents.
- Collective rationalization of one’s own great right.
- Direct pressure on dissenters in the group.
- The oppressive person presents himself as a sentiment
Lesson learned from this could be
that a strong cohesion of the group is one of the most important contributions
Groupthink needs strong feelings of
solidarity and the individual desire of the group members to have good
relationships with each other. This is often seen in comrades in a cohesive
The correlation between
groupcohesion and groupthink is rather weak. But there is one. ‘Debiasing’
strategies are therefore needed.
A group with a strong leader is
vulnerable to groupthink. Or if one is unsure of having a dissenting opinion.
is important for risk leadership to build self-confidence. For this, the interpersonal
sense of safety is important.
homogeneity of the group and groupthink, third parties can be involved in the
story. Often these are consultants.
the group leader express his opinion last is useful to let others express their
opinion for themselves. This is important for the impartiality of the leader.
Otherwise, there is a danger that in the group
- less information is used;
- the leader exerts too much influence;
- fewer proposals for solutions come on the table
addition to personal safety, constructive conflict is beneficial. This is
because differences in team members’ opinions, ideas, values, and ways of
thinking are important to learn to work together optimally. This is best done
with a high degree of interpersonal safety.
Leadership is a double-edged sword
- leadership can prevent groupthink by being aware of the
antecedent conditions, the symptoms of groupthink, and symptoms of defective
- strong leadership can kick-start groupthink.
The camaraderie should not be
‘fictitious’: one must continue to dare to challenge the other. Otherwise, one
is too easily impressed by the opinion of ‘peers’. After all, higher social interaction also increases this effect.
The culture in the crisis team is
important. If in an organization one does not have the habit of expressing
one’s own opinion in a crisismeeting, then this groupthink provokes a lower
qualitative decision-making process, with higher chance of mistakes. It can go so far that people expect you to
keep your idea to yourself. With all the consequences for the quality of the
A well-known example of such
groupthink was the disaster with the Challenger on January 28, 1986.
Another well-known example is the
Chernobyl disaster on Saturday, April 26, 1986.
Consequently, it is best to work from
a collegiality based on free expression. This may involve aspects of
camaraderie, as a catalyst. Not as the main characteristic of mutual behavior.