Irving Janis made an interesting point about some explanations for “stupid” decisions made by federal decision-makers were incomplete. Janis states, “explanations were incomplete if they concentrated only on disturbances in the behavior of each individual” including “temporary emotional states of elation, fear, or anger that reduce a man’s mental efficiency…” (Janis, 360- 361) This statement makes me think of one reason why some people didn’t vote for Hilary Clinton during the 2016 election. Many Trump supporters, Republicans, etc believed that Hilary was the lesser candidate compared to Trump because she is a woman. And because of her womanhood, she would not have been able to “make rational decisions” due to women’s tendencies to be “emotionally unstable”. This allowed for any opinion of Clinton to be skewed against her. Women are deemed unfit or not as fit as men to be such prominent leaders because emotions could and would get in the way of any capacity to lead. Furthermore, this allows for men to be seen as superior and superior in humanity. In reality, this is a denial of humanity and a clear demonstration of the inability to have self-control, which both contradict qualities of great leadership.
Based on the Bay of Pigs example given in the text, my initial thought of what “groupthink” might have been was the idea that those in a position of leadership are more likely to make decisions based on majority agreements. Janis confirms my thoughts and goes on to explain the causes, symptoms/consequences, and remedies for this “typical phenomena of social conformity”. Janis further confirms my hypothesis with the concept of “concurrence-seeking”, in which norms and harmony are desired typically more than realistic circumstances and conscious feelings. With groupthink, there is so much intentional and unintentional group/peer pressure that rational thinking that would allow for realistic decision-making could be skewed towards immorality or amorality. No one wants to step on anyone else’s toes; no one wants to be the oddball in the room; no one wants to be the source of drama or of conflict.
The film “Thirteen Days” details the behind-the-scenes process in which former President John F. Kennedy and his executive advisors made decisions in handling the Cuban Missile Crisis. They knew that they could not allow the Soviet Union to store missiles in Cuba, so they had to get them out for safety and status reasons. Advisor Bobby, the Assistant to the President, and President JFK had congregated outside of the entire advisory board to discuss options. This was an illustration of Janis’ remedies numbers 1 and 4 because they stepped off as a more condensed group near the start of the film to criticize the group’s thinking more deeply. The President had been presented with 3 options for how to handle the crisis: surgical air strike against missiles, large airstrike against air defenses and missiles or invasion. Initially, the President saw this as the best option, yet as the movie went on, discussions were expanded on choosing the best options. This was an illustration of remedy number 2, in which Janis suggests for a group to have an impartial stance, not definite, on what is to happen to open the floor for inquiry and potential policy alternatives.
I definitely agree that when Advisor Bobby and JFK stepped off as a more condensed group near the start of the film to criticize the group’s thinking more deeply, they were demonstrating a decision making technique opposite to groupthink. In my opinion, this was crucial in preventing a World War because they were able to think logically and rationally without being influenced by the opinion of the group.
I like the connection you drew between groupthink and the 2016 election. This goes to show how many different forces are at play when someone is evaluating a leader, and groupthink definitely could be one of them.