First Written on August 24, 2008 Revised and Updated Monday, December 22, 2008 Group Think and the resultant team failure Introduction 'Group Think' is one of the various reasons for team failure and a phenomenon that happens in teams which have good, capable and talented members and are also highly cohesive as units. It is exactly opposite to the phenomenon of 'Apollo Syndrome' where other aspects of a team are the same but the team is not cohesive. In such cohesive teams, dissent is not encouraged, but frowned upon, because all are experts in their own areas of specialization. Facts that are to the contrary to the conventional wisdom are ignored or different interpretations given suiting the team's 'group think'. The interpretations of the individual experts cannot be challenged because no one else knows anything about the subject. The pre-conceived notions, ideas, dogmas and prejudices of individuals play a dominant role in the decisions arrived at. Last but not the least, the social status within the group and its pressure on dissenting individuals decides the final outcome. Professor Dr. Irving L Janis of Harvard University has done some pioneering research on the phenomenon of Group Think and coined the term. 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco - Political Scenario - 1961 The most well known political case of 'group think' after the World War II was the 'Bay of Pigs' incident under the then charismatic President Mr. John F Kennedy in 1961. This happened during the 'cold war' era between USA and the then Soviet Union. A covert invasion of Cuba was authorized by President Kennedy to the CIA along with Cuban exiles, who were opposing the Cuban President Mr. Fidel Castro, though the secret intelligence reports strongly indicated that such an exercise would result most probably in failure. The decision was still under taken and carried out. The invasion was a fiasco and everyone involved in the physical invasion were either killed or captured. It was a disaster of the greatest magnitude on US foreign policy, equivalent to 10 on the Richter scale, for the Kennedy administration. President Kennedy faced a tough time when the news broke out, till the ill thought out, Nikita Khrucheav led 'Cuban missile' crisis came along as a manna from heaven, saved his reputation and he became the beloved hero he was, in the eyes of the American public, once again. WMD and Iraq invasion fiasco - 2003 I attended a course on American Political System at the USIS Consulate in Madras nearly 36 or 37 years ago during the summer holidays, while in college. I was never interested in politics and am completely apolitical. The reason I attended this program was that USIS had the best air conditioned complex in Madras then. Another reason was some of the best and most good looking girls used to frequent the place. The Indian-American professor of Political Science who conducted the course repeatedly stressed on the fact that the American Military Industrial Complex - MIC - played a major role in the foreign policy decisions of the US Government during the cold war era. It is a universally known fact that any war launched by any nation benefits the local armaments and related industries. Iraq war is no exception. In this case it gives control over a strategic resource - Oil. While a war brings suffering, death and destruction in some parts of the world, there is no denying the fact that it brings prosperity and wealth in another part. That is why so many engage in it for profit. No wonder they are known as 'Merchants of Death and Destruction'. The most recent example of such a 'group think' phenomenon is the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) presumed to have been with Iraq. All the experts, right from the intelligence officials, military officers, the nuclear and space scientists were convinced mentally that Iraq had such weapons and every shred of evidence was looked at from that angle to confirm the hypothesis. Every satellite picture analyzed pointed to a potential WMD with creative imagination at work. The whole world believed them because they are the experts. However, there must have been some dissenters. But such teams are expected to function without dissent. This is also against the principles of team working. Dissent must be listened to and due cognizance must be given to it, but there will be ironically, no dissenters in such teams because nobody wants to upset the cozy relationships or the applecart. The social orientation or reflexivity is very high in such teams. The task orientation or reflexivity aims for consensus and unanimity at all costs, even if the decisions are all wrong. In some cases, you will have dissenters being eased out of the team. This is also extremely rare because in most such teams, members are hand picked for personal allegiance and loyalty. In such teams, loyalty is more valued and regarded than individual competence, because competence can always be hired and fired at will Some conscientious members in such teams will behave with unease like a 'cat on a hot tin roof'. They will jump out on their own free will at the earliest opportunity. The leader has a very difficult job in such situations. He will be driven to the wall for a decision by the team and it will be similar to 'Heads I win, Tails you lose'. The saddest part of 'group think' phenomenon is that ultimately, the leader has to take the rap for failure, when he just cannot be knowledgeable on all the subjects involved. He has to depend on his trusted team members for recommendations. It is more than 5 years since the allied invasion of Iraq, but no WMD has been discovered. If they existed, where are they now? Truly, they cannot disappear into thin air! Otherwise, this could be a classical trap of 'group think'. The third case of this group think phenomenon in business situations is the ‘HP Pretexting Scandal’ which has been covered separately. Written  by Madhavan T Gopalachary The views, opinions and interpretations are personal. Sponsorship does not mean that the sponsors endorse them. © Copyright, Dec-08 . www.madgopes.com . Without prejudice. All rights reserved