Group think Harbour

GROUPTHINK :Case and Analysis
The weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor (PH) in December 1941, military commanders in Hawaii received a report about Japan's preparations for attacking the U.S. somewhere in the Pacific. Military intelligence and then lost contact with the Japanese carriers that have started moving to Hawaii. Air reconnaissance should be able to monitor the movements of aircraft carriers and giving warning in the last minute. But the commanders decided to ignore that information. So that Pearl Harbour was not ready when it attacked, no alarm sounded when the bombs began berledakan. 18 ships sunk, 170 aircraft were destroyed, and 3700 people died. (Social Psychology, Sarlito Wirawan, 1999, pp. 117)
The above examples are examples of groupthink that occurred in the United States.
Is groupthink that?
Irvings groupthink by Janis (1972) is the term for the situation when a group makes decisions that make no sense to reject the assumption / public opinion that has real proof, and have moral values. The decision of this group came from some influential individuals in the group irrationally but managed to affect the group into a group decision. Groupthink influence the group by performing actions that make no sense and disregard the conflicting opinions outside the group. Groups affected by groupthink syndrome is usually a group whose members have the same background, alienated (not fused, isolated) from outside opinions, and there are no clear rules about decision making processes.
While groupthink by Grace (2005) was the decision making process that occurs in a very cohesive group, where the members try to maintain group consensus so that the critical capability to be not effective anymore.
groupthink, whereby a group of people, in order to maintain his identity as a group, do not dare to oppose the decision which is considered as the majority decision


Negative impact groupthink in the group:
Very limited discussion on some alternative decision alone.
1. Solving problems from the beginning was likely chosen, are no longer evaluated or reviewed.
2. Solution to the problem that since the beginning rejected, never be reconsidered.
3. Never seek or ask for opinions of experts in the field.
4. If no advice or other considerations, its acceptance is selected because there was bias on the part of members.
5. Tend not to see the possibilities of other groups will perform acts of opposition, so as not ready to do its anticipation.
6. Surveyed with the policy objectives is not complete and perfect.
Determinant factors contained in the groupthink, which is (Sarwono, 1999):
1. Antecedent factors
If the things that preceded the group intended to enhance the mind, then the decision made by the group would be a bad value. However, if the things that precede intended to prevent the group mind, the decision will be made by the group will be well worth it.
2. Voice roundness factor
Groups which require unanimity was more often stuck in the minds of the group, rather than using a majority vote system.
3. Institute of Social-Emotional Factors
Groups-social ties tend to develop high emotional group mind, while the group that ties straightforward and based on the mere task of the group mind tends to be lower.
4. Tolerance Error
Larger group mind if the mistakes of the left there is no tolerance for mistakes there
Symptoms of groupthink in the group (Janis):
1. Erroneous perceptions (illusions), that there is confidence that the group will not be invincible.
2. Collective rationality, by way of justifying the wrong things as seemed to make sense.
3. Believe in the morality of an existing undercurrent in the group.
4. Stereotypes against other groups (think bad of other groups).
5. Direct pressure on members whose opinions differ from the opinions of the group.
6. Self-censorship of deviations from the consensus group.
7. Illusion that all group members agree and vote unanimously.
8. Automatic keep mentally fit to prevent or filter the information that is not supported, this is done by the guards thought the group (mindguards).
How to overcome groupthink by Janis is the group leader to suspend the assessment, encouraging the emergence of various criticisms of the program or decision proposed, inviting experts from outside groups, assigning one or two members to be the devil's advocate to oppose majority opinion (even if they actually agree with that opinion), and the group must make decisions in stages, not all at once.
To avoid groupthink, group leaders need to carry out activities with groups such as the following condition.
1. Delivering openly about the possibility of growth of group mind deliberately consequences.
2. Emphasized the need for the position of the other alignments.
3. Asking critical evaluation of each member, by giving encouragement and outlines a doubt.
4. Appoint one or two people to become critics of the group.
5. When certain groups need to be broken up into smaller and more effective, and moments later restored to obtain the maximum role of each member.
6. Provide enough time to study the existence of other groups (rival), by identifying the signs or statements or other possibilities considered dangerous.
7. After the provisional decision reached, requested the members to re-evaluate in different occasions.
8. Provide time to invite experts in attending group meetings, to criticize or reject the views of the group.
9. Open the possibility of group members to always discuss openly in another forum, with record results solely for the group.
10. Make several independent groups are not mutually dependent (independent), to work together in solving a problem.
Criticism of the theory of groupthink:
1. Aldag and Fuller (1993)
According to Aldag and Fuller, retrospective analysis of groupthink (retroactively), so Janis can take the evidence supports the theory. Integration of the group itself does not necessarily lead to thoughts of the group. For example a marriage and family, can be fixed without creating an integrated or cohesive group mind, while still letting differences of opinion without compromising the integrity of itself.
2. Tetlock, et al (1992)
Tetlock, et.al rate, historical facts prove that there are also groups who have followed a good procedure, but still make mistakes, as when President Carter and his advisors are planning the release of hostages in Iran in 1980. The operation was a total failure and disgrace the United States, although the group has invited a variety of opinions from the outside and taking into account all possibilities realistically.
Referensi
http://www.itpin.com/blog/index.php?s=manajer&paged=10
http://afrilwibisono.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/analisa-groupthink/
http://edsa.unsoed.net/?p=72
Sarlito Wirawan Sarwono, 1999, Psikologi sosial: psikologi kelompok dan psikologi terapan