Of the many criticisms that can be leveled at two terms of the Bush administration, a comparatively mild one is that its major actors were guilty, as a group, of poor decision making. Nevertheless, I will spend this diary describing how a psychological phenomenon called groupthink seems to aptly describe how the administration behaves. Almost amusingly so, in my opinion, if it weren't so catastrophic.
Social psychologist Irv Janis' theory of groupthink (actual science, I promise) describes a phenomenon in which certain groups charged with complex decisions, even groups of very accomplished and talented people, end up engaging in maladaptive group processes that lead to flawed decisions (fiascoes even). Groupthink is when groups choose between courses of action mainly according to what suits the coherence and well-being of the group itself rather than choosing on the basis of the practical aspects of the problem at hand. The individual members need not necessarily think of it that way, of course, but simply behave in such a way that suggests it's the case. Often the course of action that makes a group feel good about itself is not the best one. In addition to conducting years of laboratory research, Janis developed his theory through historical case study. He has argued that the Bay of Pigs was a disaster that plausibly involved groupthink but that the Kennedy administration learned from this mistake and instituted structural changes avoiding it that provoked more functional management of the later Cuban missile crisis.
I sort of suspect that groupthink is the Bush administration's modus operandi. They seem utterly insular, isolated, aggrandizing, secretive, and self-interested, things that as you'll see are pertinent. But let's keep in mind that most hated of decisions, the invasion of Iraq as I describe the details of the theory.
What kind of group is prone to groupthink?
*Cohesive groups (members are close, like each other)
Okay, seems like that's a fair descriptor for the most part. Who really knows? What else have you got?
*Policy making groups are insulated.
Uh-oh. Tough to get more insulated than world leaders. The Bush admin, in particular, seems a world unto itself.
*Policy making is under high-pressure circumstances.
It's starting to sound like powerful executives in general might want to worry about this.
*Lack of a tradition of impartial leadership.
Check.
*Lack of norms requiring methodological procedures for dealing with the decision-making tasks.
Hahaha. Yes, let's all picture Bush and Cheney listening carefully and openly to well-prepared information from their competent and professional appointees.
What does groupthink in action look like? Symptoms of groupthink.
*Overestimations of the group
-An illusion of invulnerability which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme
risks
-An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the
ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
This diary writes itself.
*Closed mindedness
-Collective efforts to rationalize
-Stereotyped views of oppositional groups and perceptions of superiority
Mission accomplished. The terrorists hate our freedom.
*Pressures toward uniformity
-Self censorship.
Colin Powell.
-Shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view.
To be confirmed when various admin members write their cash-in biographies.
-Direct pressure on any members who expresses strong arguments against group's stereotypes,
illusions, or commitments.
Yeah, some real problems could emerge if things are handled this way. Good thing the Bush administration encourages whistle blowing. Republicans in general are just so refreshingly unauthoritarian.
- The emergence of self appointed mindguards-- members who protect the group from adverse
information.
I've got to admit, I have no evidence for this, but I would hazard a guess that this is rampant. It's probably especially easy with Bush, who is not much of a reader or information seeker generally speaking.
Having listed some of the antecedents and characteristics of groupthink, I'll finish with its consequences. This is when everything gets horribly, horribly fucked up.
Consequences of groupthink
*Incomplete survey of alternatives
*Incomplete survey of objectives
*Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
*Failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives
*Poor information search
*Selective bias in processing information at hand
*Failure to work out contingency plans.
Remind you of anything?