Groupthink risk for high performing teams
We are trying to build self-managing agile teams. Our goal should be to reach a “high-performing” team (Tuckman’s idea of a team in the “Performing” stage). We often discuss the strategies to achieve strong, self-managing teams, and these are central themes on this site.
Scrum talks about the value of cohesion in that goal.
The essence of Scrum is a small team of people. The individual team is highly flexible and adaptive.
The Scrum Guide
It may seem that a successful team is one which has uniformity and constant agreement. But that is not the goal we are looking for. There is plenty of evidence that diversity of viewpoint, and not uniformity is what we need.
Tuckman’s work on team dynamics, and subsequent research, has shown that conflict (or “Storming”) is not something to be avoided. Research suggests that teams with conflicting opinions appear to outperform uniform teams as long as psychological safety lets them exploit those differences.
Uniform teams can fail to question core assumptions. The quote below comes from a study of how Nokia’s failure to question internal opinions cost them the smartphone market. I was in the mobile industry at the time and found this paper a very educational, if slightly depressing, read.
I should have been much, much more courageous.
“How Nokia lost the Smartphone battle” – Vuori and Huy 2015
I should have made a lot more noise, criticized people more directly.
I should have been braver about rattling people’s cages
I could have made more of an impact.
Groupthink
To understand the risks inherent in strong, uniform teams, we need to consider a concept called “Groupthink”, the tendency for teams to resist questioning the majority opinion.
The key paper on the subject was “Victims of groupthink; a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes” by Irving Janis. It’s a great title and clearly suggests how strong the impact can be, not just to project teams, but widely to political events. Janis grounds his work in key political episodes – The Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbour, the Cuban Missile Crisis.
However, despite the age of the study and the political focus, the themes are hugely relevant to modern business teams. Agile teams similarly have a similar combination of high stress and high cohesion. Janis (deliberately picking an Orwellian-sounding name) defined Groupthink as:
A mode of thinking people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.
“Victims of groupthink” – Janis 1973
A weakness in cohesive teams
This is a real problem in high performing teams, because Janis’ “cohesive in-group” is exactly what we are trying to build. Janis highlights that there may be a weakness inherent in this approach. If Janis is right, a cohesive team automatically builds a risk of poor judgement. We need to be aware of this and how to mitigate the effects.
What Janis was seeing is that in some circumstances, teams will limit their discussion to only a few alternatives. When one is selected, they will tend to ignore new information concerning risks or possible issues in the chosen approach.
Typically they will also avoid revisiting the initial decision even if new evidence tends to support a rejected approach. They will work internally rather than use experts to improve or refine the decision. And the teams will exhibit a high level of confidence in their decision. As a result they may fail to consider the possibility of failure and so fail to plan for that possibility.
Vulnerability to Groupthink
What factors make a team vulnerable to Groupthink? According to Janis, the starting vulnerability is to have a high level of group cohesion. However, a group is not necessarily prone to Groupthink just because it is cohesive. Janis identifies a set of team characteristics which tend to increase the likelihood of Groupthink becoming a problem.
Unfortunately, as we can see, many of these characteristics are present in development teams. Some indeed we try to promote in these teams.
The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by
“Victims of groupthink” – Janis 1973
Group characteristics
Cohesiveness
The more the team grows together as a unit, the more pressure the team members apply to each other. In Tuckman’s model, a “forming” team is a loose group of individuals and ignoring other opinions is easy. But a “performing” team may not want to disrupt the effectiveness of the team by introducing conflicting opinions.
Cohesiveness is a particular problem in agile software development as we are consciously trying to build strong cohesive teams.
Isolation
If the group is isolated from others, this also leads to problems. If it becomes easy to get feedback from within the group, but hard to access opinions external to the group, then the “echo chamber” effect occurs.
Isolation occurs with many software teams with strong internal bonds and weak external interfaces. As we build cross-functional teams, and try to minimise handovers which will disrupt flow, we risk increasing team isolation.
Leadership
Leadership is a major factor in groupthink. Powerful leaders apply pressure for people to support their ideas. “Expert” leaders can present themselves as the only person with a valid opinion. These attitudes raise pressure on the team to conform.
Many technology organisations have directive leaders, and especially expert technology leaders. Often using Scientific Management approaches, these may be reinforcing obedience and minimising the acceptance of challenge.
Procedure
If there is no agreed procedure for decision taking, the resulting informal approaches leave the team open to Groupthink. There may simply be no point at which review and challenge is expected.
Scaling organisations often have weak decision making process and it is unclear where and by whom decisions are made.
Homogeneity
If the team is uniform and similar, there is less diversity of viewpoint. This generates less options and alternatives. There is likely to be less challenge of conclusions as these may be consistent across the group.
Technology companies often suffer from recruitment from a small pool of applicants. Referrals are often preferred and “cultural fit” a major consideration, leading to very similar opinions.
Situation
There is often a situational context acting as a trigger to Groupthink. Particular stresses are likely to cause the team to respond in this way. Generally Groupthink occurs when there are high risks inherent in failure and difficulty in finding acceptable or alternative solutions.
Unfortunately these situations are only too common in development environments. Development often includes tight, even unrealistic deadlines, critical issues and long working hours.
Team Groupthink case study
A team presenting a status update was approaching the end of a long and difficult project. Schedules were tight but the team had been progressing well and had been consistently reporting being on track. But even at this late stage one set of tests was substantially incomplete. The plan was to complete writing this set of tests on the last day before delivery. The tests would then be run overnight and the product delivered the next day.
The reviewer asks the obvious question – but what if a test failed?
We can see how this maps to the requirements of a Groupthink situation.
This was a very cohesive team who had been very inwardly focussed on the late stages of the project, leading to a level of isolation. They were in a stressful situation with a project slipping and unable to find an alternative solution. The plan had originally had some buffering, and every time another day was lost they convinced themselves the plan was still possible. As a result they adopted a solution with a very low chance of success and convinced themselves that it was acceptable.
The review meeting had added a formal decision process and an external viewpoint. In Janis’ terms, “procedure” and “leadership”. Without this the team would have continued without challenge to their approach. This would have led to a project failure on the final day of delivery with serious consequences.
Good practices
As an Agile Leader, you are trying to build effective self-managing teams. But there is a risk.
How can you counter Groupthink in your teams? You should consider each of Janis’ areas which promote Groupthink and how you might be able to counter them in your organisation.
Promoting team diversity will help to counter the isolation of the team from conflicting opinions. Agile teams are cross-functional and bring diverse views and optinions. Ensuring a wide range of skills in the team and building diversity into recruitment can really help here.
Leadership behaviours are important. Janis highlights how encouraging questioning, avoiding hero culture and accepting learning are all important.
A leader can also ensure that the team interacts widely. This can be more challenging with remote teams. Ensuring that team members interact outside the team can involve building overlapping groups, which could be departmental or technical communities of practice. Making sure that technical and social interaction outside the team is happening, including review and presentations, can help avoid isolation.
Psychological safety is a key factor. Groupthink is dangerous because there is a reluctance to question the team opinion. Agile thrives on having the freedom to ask difficult questions. Avoiding blame and fear and encouraging experimentation and learning will help to resist Groupthink.
Leave a Reply