Psychologically speaking, groupthink is defined as:
a phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. - Wikipedia
More technically:
Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. - http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm
According to this same site, there are 8 "symptoms" and "remedies" of group think which are:
Janis' Symptoms of Groupthink
- Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
- Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
- Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
- Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
- Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
- Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
- Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
- Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
Remedies thought of by experts
- The leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member
- The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset
- Each member of the group should routinely discuss the groups' deliberations with a trusted associate and report back to the group on the associate's reactions
- One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis. The outside experts should be encouraged to challenge views of the members.
- At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil's advocate (to question assumptions and plans)
- The leader should make sure that a sizeable block of time is set aside to survey warning signals from rivals; leader and group construct alternative scenarios of rivals' intentions.
Let's look at how these symptoms and remedies may look in a Christian setting taken from - http://www.missionarycare.com/brochures/br_groupthink.htm:
Symptoms
- Illusion of invulnerability, such as “This can’t fail because God is on our side.”
- Collective rationalization of warnings that challenge assumptions. For example, if a secular consultant says that money will not come in for the project, group members agree that she just does not understand faith promises.
- Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, such as “Because we are God’s children, what we are doing must be an ethical or good thing to do.”
- Stereotyping people outside the group as weak, biased, stupid, or even evil. For example, nationals opposed to building a church in their neighborhood may be characterized as under demonic influence.
- Pressure on dissenting group members to conform by suggesting they lack faith if they do not support the decision.
- Illusion of unanimity among group members because the silence of others is taken as agreement even though most of the committee may think the idea is doomed to failure.
- Self-censorship in which members do not express doubts because of the apparent consensus among other group members. Because it looks like the whole field committee agrees, no one is willing to look like a Doubting Thomas.
- Self-appointed “mindguards” who shield the group from problematic information. Committee members who are in favor of the project may take it upon themselves to see that conflicting financial reports are suppressed or taking aside any missionary who expresses doubts and pleading for unity behind the field director’s project.
Remedies
- Leaders do not express their opinions or preferences when assigning the task.
- Leaders encourage each group member to express objections and doubts when the group meets.
- Members of the group routinely discuss plans or progress with trusted persons outside the group...
- Outside experts should be invited to meetings on a staggered basis and encouraged to challenge views expressed.
- At each meeting a different member of the group should be the “Devil’s advocate” assigned to point out possible flaws and suggest alternatives.
- Before final approval at least one meeting should be devoted to consider all warning signals members can think of.
Of course, in avoiding groupthink, people must not go to the opposite extreme and be so cautious that they get caught in gridlock and do not approve any solution.
If you read my latest blog, I spoke about a magnified perspective, or being in "too deep" to be able to see the bigger picture. If I would take that writing and apply that to this one, I would definitely say that group think is the "magnification" of a relationship and the remedy is the ability to pull back.
In any relationship whether it be of 2 people or 2 million, there will always rise a leader, even if briefly, and there will always be followers and the two together will always produce, if not careful, groupthink. The leader could be a husband, a boss, the foreman of a jury, a preacher, someone appointed or who steps up in a crowd, or the President. Anyone in a position of unchallenged authority will become the leader. This leader has an awesome responsibility to always make sure he or she does not become a dictator, but to make sure that they look out for the overall well being of a group.
Naturally, those under that leader will look to that person for direction. Maybe they do it because they feel the leader is more learned, more courageous, stronger, faster, well spoken, or more wise. When the people look to their leader to fulfill those things they believe they lack in themselves, they start to put that leader on a pedestal. They begin to have the need to protect and elevate the leader because he or she protects the group.
What are some biblical examples of groupthink?
We just ended a world wide "celebration" of Jesus' death. No matter what you feel about the appropriateness of the day, the events surrounding his persecution before death is very congruent with this particular writing. Let's look at scripture:
Luke 22:66-71, 23:1-25
Jesus before the Council
66 At daybreak all the elders of the people assembled, including the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. Jesus was led before this high council,[f] 67 and they said, “Tell us, are you the Messiah?”
But he replied, “If I tell you, you won’t believe me. 68 And if I ask you a question, you won’t answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated in the place of power at God’s right hand.[g]”
70 They all shouted, “So, are you claiming to be the Son of God?”
And he replied, “You say that I am.”
71 “Why do we need other witnesses?” they said. “We ourselves heard him say it.”
23:1 Then the entire council took Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor. 2 They began to state their case: “This man has been leading our people astray by telling them not to pay their taxes to the Roman government and by claiming he is the Messiah, a king.”
3 So Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
Jesus replied, “You have said it.”
4 Pilate turned to the leading priests and to the crowd and said, “I find nothing wrong with this man!”
5 Then they became insistent. “But he is causing riots by his teaching wherever he goes—all over Judea, from Galilee to Jerusalem!”
6 “Oh, is he a Galilean?” Pilate asked. 7 When they said that he was, Pilate sent him to Herod Antipas, because Galilee was under Herod’s jurisdiction, and Herod happened to be in Jerusalem at the time.
8 Herod was delighted at the opportunity to see Jesus, because he had heard about him and had been hoping for a long time to see him perform a miracle. 9 He asked Jesus question after question, but Jesus refused to answer. 10 Meanwhile, the leading priests and the teachers of religious law stood there shouting their accusations. 11 Then Herod and his soldiers began mocking and ridiculing Jesus. Finally, they put a royal robe on him and sent him back to Pilate. 12 (Herod and Pilate, who had been enemies before, became friends that day.)
13 Then Pilate called together the leading priests and other religious leaders, along with the people, 14 and he announced his verdict. “You brought this man to me, accusing him of leading a revolt. I have examined him thoroughly on this point in your presence and find him innocent. 15 Herod came to the same conclusion and sent him back to us. Nothing this man has done calls for the death penalty. 16 So I will have him flogged, and then I will release him.”[a]
18 Then a mighty roar rose from the crowd, and with one voice they shouted, “Kill him, and release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas was in prison for taking part in an insurrection in Jerusalem against the government, and for murder.) 20 Pilate argued with them, because he wanted to release Jesus. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
22 For the third time he demanded, “Why? What crime has he committed? I have found no reason to sentence him to death. So I will have him flogged, and then I will release him.”
23 But the mob shouted louder and louder, demanding that Jesus be crucified, and their voices prevailed. 24 So Pilate sentenced Jesus to die as they demanded. 25 As they had requested, he released Barabbas, the man in prison for insurrection and murder. But he turned Jesus over to them to do as they wished.
Here we can see the hallmarks of group think. First, we have the leaders and we have the followers and a situation. Next, we have an outside person (Pilate and Herod) giving their unbiased opinion based off of independent investigation (or having the ability to pull back and not be sucked into the group), however, it is not accepted. There is a question placed before the leaders and the crowd as to what to do, but before this even happened, the leaders already had come to a conclusion of what they wanted to happen without input from the crowd. Therefore, the crowd shouted with them (although some may not have had an opinion) to "kill Him".
So, we see group think in the bible, but is it biblical?
Biblically speaking, yes, we should all be on one accord and of one mind - but that one mind should be the mind of Christ led specifically by the Spirit of Yah. That mind should not be of one person, denomination, or group. This is why the Father warns us constantly to not put anything before Him. This is also why He tells us to conform to Christ, not men.
Many will argue that Paul said to be like him and he's a man that is, of human nature. But what we also have to remember is that Paul tried to walk as closely to Christ's walk as humanly possible. He admittedly had faults. But Paul always urged those to not look at him, but to look at our Savior and to pattern ourselves after Him, just as he was doing. If those under one's leadership doesn't remember that, they will become drawn "into" that leader. They will begin speaking like them, acting like them, thinking like them, believing like them. They will start to pattern themselves after that leader instead of Yahshua as we are told to in the bible. The admiration of that leader becomes so strong, that faults won't be able to be seen. And if this leader has other alternatives ,say control or power, other than serving and looking out for the well being of those under their leadership, it will be easy to take advantage of that group and turn them into groupthinkers. And that is not biblical.
How do we avoid becoming groupthinkers in our walk with Christ or in our daily life?
I believe that if we take into consideration the things we learn from the bible, and even think about the remedies posted above, the things that are in common is having the ability to "pull back" and see the wider view.
In the remedies given, there was often a suggestion of having someone from the outside to look in and evaluate the situation. That would be the equivalent to having someone in church with the ability to discern and see the bigger picture. For discernment isn't just about "seeing spirits" but also the uncanny ability to objectively observe a situation and put pieces together to distinguish what is true versus what is almost true. We must be willing to admit, we are human and we have weak spots, and not be afraid to look for them. We must be willing to admit to ourselves when we have allowed ourselves to be patterned after a "man" rather than Christ. We must be able to understand that sometimes in our relationships, we can become too deep and look for those willing to help us to pull back. But before we can even invite someone with a wider view in, we have to admit there is or could be a problem and be willing to set up an atmosphere where opposite views can be spoken freely.
Time and time again, you will have many church goers get angry at someone from the outside who says "something isn't right about this church". If you are the person becoming angry, vexed, and ready to go to war at the thought of someone "coming against" what you are a part of, chances are, you have fallen into group think. Stop, reevaluate, correct, repent, and move on by the Spirit of Christ. Don't shun those trying to help.
We also have to be careful to not elevate people and thereby helping to puff them up into thinking more highly of themselves than they aught. Many leaders are known to have a quality that makes them either desire control, power, or to feel important. It is their "drive" or "motivation" if you will. And it is not always a bad thing. We need people who want to take control of certain situations. Think of a Fire Chief leading his men to devise a plan to safely put out an apartment building fire. Or, think of someone on a crowded street yelling instructions to different people on how to help a family trapped in a car from a car wreck. But sometimes those desires can become misplaced and twisted. Because of that, the enemy can use others to help that person fall (spiritually speaking). The enemy can use people to insulate that person's thinking, make that person feel unmerited power.
If you are in a leadership capacity and truly have a heart to serve rather than be served, I urge you - be careful of who you surround yourself with. I am reminded of the story of King Ahab and Micaiah...
1 Kings 22:10-14
10 King Ahab of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah, dressed in their royal robes, were sitting on thrones at the threshing floor near the gate of Samaria. All of Ahab’s prophets were prophesying there in front of them. 11 One of them, Zedekiah son of Kenaanah, made some iron horns and proclaimed, “This is what the Lord says: With these horns you will gore the Arameans to death!”
12 All the other prophets agreed. “Yes,” they said, “go up to Ramoth-gilead and be victorious, for the Lord will give the king victory!”
13 Meanwhile, the messenger who went to get Micaiah said to him, “Look, all the prophets are promising victory for the king. Be sure that you agree with them and promise success.”
14 But Micaiah replied, “As surely as the Lord lives, I will say only what the Lord tells me to say.”
If we read further down in the chapter, we see that the king chose the counsel of his prophets - those who elevated him instead of keeping him grounded - instead of the godly counsel of Micaiah. Because there was no room to speak truth and Micaiah did anyway, the king ordered him to prison. In doing so, it lead him to his destruction and death. This whole scenario is what happens to leaders who fall into groupthink by surrounding themselves with people with the inability to see a "wider view". To be a good leader, you must not allow those who counsel you to fall into group think. To surround yourself with "yes men", people who will do anything to protect you and your image, is certain destruction. Always be willing to have those willing to disagree, or see the wider view within your circle and listen to them. Only leaders with an elevated sense of self-importance will allow the latter. Reason being, their heart isn't to serve the people, but to look after and protect their own self interest...but that is another writing for another time.
All in all, we must watch ourselves carefully. Not all will have the ability to pull back, evaluate a situation, and not form an opinion or solution based on group think. For those people, it is important that you learn to not shun dissenting voices. They add balance to every situation. For those who have the ability to pull back, never be afraid to stand - even if it is you standing alone. Your voice is needed. Don't fall into the pit of "groupthink".
