Defence Forces Review 2010

The Ultimate Cost of Poor Decision Making is the Loss of Human Lifetheir assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions. In Type3, the group pressurises its members towards conformity with self-censorship of deviationsfrom the apparent group consensus. This reflects each member’s inclination to minimise theirdoubts and counter-arguments. They gain an illusion of unanimity concerning judgementsconforming to the majority view, with direct pressure on any member who expresses strongarguments against any of the group’s stereotypes. Self-appointed mindguards 30 then protectthe group from adverse information that might shatter the shared complacency, making clearthat dissent is contrary to what is expected of loyal members. Janis’s proposition is that themore frequently a group displays these symptoms, the more decision quality will deteriorate.Shaw posits that groups with high cohesion levels are more effective than groups withlow cohesion levels in achieving their respective goals, but accepts that the results are notaltogether consistent. 31 Janis acknowledges this and notes that when appropriate precautionsare taken, a group that has become moderately or highly cohesive can do a better job on itsdecision-making tasks than if it remained non-cohesive. He states “…cohesive groups canhave great advantages if groupthink tendencies can be kept from becoming dominant.” 32Symptoms of Defective Decision MakingAccording to Janis, whenever a decision-making group displays most of these symptoms wecan expect to find that the group also displays symptoms of defective decision making (BoxD, Fig. 1). The most relevant symptoms are: (1) discussions are limited to a few alternativesolutions (2) the group fails to re-examine the course of action initially preferred by the majority(3) the members do not obtain information from experts and (4) selective bias is shown bythe group towards information that supports their preferred policy. Janis assumes that thesedefects and some related features of inadequate decision making result from groupthink andlead to a low possibility of successful outcome. But, he accepts, that each defect can arisefrom other causes such as stupidity, erroneous intelligence, information overload, fatigue,prejudice and ignorance.Preventing GroupthinkJanis accepts that the problem of preventing costly miscalculations and lapses from soundthinking in decision making is complicated, and he notes that “For constructive thinkingto go on, a group must have a fairly high degree of like-mindedness about basic valuesand mutual respect.” 33 Thus, he questions how decision makers can benefit from groupcohesiveness without suffering serious losses from groupthink. He proposes nine elementaryprecautions that .”..may sometimes help to keep us out of danger while the search for aneffective cure continues.” 34 With these measures, he contends that groupthink can be avoidedwhen precautions are taken to set up norms for vigilant search and appraisal that counteractcollective uncritical thinking and premature consensus.30 This term, coined by Janis, describes how members of a cohesive group suppress deviational points of view by putting social pressure on other membersto ensure that they will not disrupt the consensus of the group as a whole.31 Shaw, M. (1971) Group Dynamics, New York, McGraw-Hill.32 Op Cit, p. 247.33 Op Cit, p. 260.34 Op Cit, p. 262.69