The phrase “He’s a great team player” suggests that teamwork is universally beneficial. However, reality is more nuanced. While working in groups can enhance problem-solving and decision-making, it’s not always the recipe for success. Collaboration brings valuable input and diverse perspectives, but it also has its drawbacks.
Group dynamics are more complicated and multifaceted than the typical student (or even teacher) understands, particularly in fields like Medicine, where combined efforts can lead to positive outcomes, but also pitfalls.
Effective groups thrive on collaboration, open communication, and arriving at a shared conclusion. Yet, the pressure to conform can stifle dissenting opinions, leading to a phenomenon known as “groupthink.” In groupthink scenarios, individuals may suppress their true thoughts to maintain harmony, resulting in fewer innovative ideas and suboptimal decisions. Surprisingly, factors like trust among team members and shared brainstorming sessions can exacerbate groupthink rather than mitigate it.
Group membership can exert significant influence, compelling individuals to align with the majority opinion. This pressure is particularly pronounced in homogeneous groups, where the desire for acceptance and inclusion can override critical thinking. Studies have shown that individuals may even mimic incorrect responses to avoid standing out, illustrating the powerful influence of group dynamics.
Group membership can exert significant influence, compelling individuals to align with the majority opinion.
I was recently the subject of an experiment Sixth Former Render Ford conducted for his social psychology class. The purpose of the experiment was to identify conformity and obedience by studying how people think in the presence of others. He began by asking me to “help him with a math investigation for his ‘Advanced Topics’ class,” and I, oblivious of the fact that I was about to make a fool of myself, quickly agreed.
Ford placed me at the end of a line of five other students (who were—unbeknownst to me—acting) and began asking us simple PEMDAS questions. The first of which was incredibly simple, and the student at the front of the line swiftly stated the correct answer, and so did the next three, and I obviously said the same thing. For the next question, an identical scenario occurred.
But the third question Ford asked was slightly different. Still fairly simple, the first student said an answer that I believed to be incorrect; I thought I was missing something. However, because the next three people in line confidently blurted the same thing, I copied them in fear of being looked upon as stupid (a major concern in groupthink). The same thing happened for the next couple of questions, and I began to worry. Finally, Ford asked, “What is twenty-one times two plus fourteen minus three?”
“Four,” the first person shouted. The next three also agreed, so I did too.
“Tommy,” Ford said. “If you were in this room by yourself, what would your answer to that question be?”
I said what I knew to be correct: “Fifty-three.”
“Then why did you say four?” Ford asked. The actors began clapping, and I immediately understood what had just transpired.
I was astonished. I am a Calculus* student, and I had been tricked in simple mathematics. I was slightly less embarrassed when Ford explained that it is, unfortunately, expected that most people be susceptible to the dangerous groupthink.
“Groupthink can cause people to do horrible things they don’t even think they’re doing because they’re just following orders—it’s human nature,” Ford said, in an interview after the experiment.
He gave examples such as the famous social psychologist Stanley Milgram’s controversial experiments with human obedience, along with the many Nazi soldiers in the Nuremberg Trials, including Adolf Eichmann, who blamed “wisdom of the crowd” for many of the atrocities they committed.
The concept of “wisdom of the crowd” suggests that collective decisions are often more accurate than individual judgments. However, this principle is limited and not necessarily true, especially in foggy choice-given scenarios where precise answers are elusive. Collective knowledge can enhance certain tasks, though it often falters in situations requiring individual and authentic judgment, such as, once again, medical diagnoses, where conforming can be deadly.
Groupthink is a pervasive challenge that resists conventional solutions. Biases and cognitive distortions can subtly undermine group communication and the ability to make good decisions, leading to poor results. Recognizing the contextual factors that amplify groupthink—such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and poor leadership—is essential for circumventing its harmful effects.
Even though conflict and uncertainty may seem disruptive, they can also foster creativity and critical thinking. By encouraging objection and embracing diverse perspectives, squads can avoid the hazards of groupthink, and conflict, when managed effectively, becomes a catalyst for innovation and growth that enriches the collaborative process, especially in a school community.
In settings where teamwork is integral to success, understanding the convolutions of group dynamics is essential. Collaboration offers numerous benefits, but it also carries inherent risks, including the potential for groupthink. By producing a Haverford School environment that encourages dissent and embraces conflict constructively, students, either by themselves or within teams, can navigate these challenges and achieve optimal outcomes.
