Humans are social animals, and organize themselves into groups to do things they can’t do alone. Some groups are formed when like-minded people get together, while others consist of people with different opinions. Either way, to work efficiently group members have to agree on a course of action and act as one.

Working together

One of the first psychologists to study how people come together in groups was Kurt Lewin, who coined the term “group dynamics” to describe how groups and their individual members behave and develop. His ideas were influenced by the Gestalt psychology notion that “the whole is different from the sum of its parts,” which suggests that groups of people can achieve things that individuals cannot. But individual members of a group may each have different opinions, and to work together as a team they have to agree on common goals, or come to a consensus. Consensus within a group is considered important, even in Western societies where individuality is regarded highly, and we rely on group institutions such as juries and committees to make fair and correct decisions.

Thinking together

Our natural desire to conform can help a group reach agreements and build team spirit, but it has a negative side, too. Social psychologist Irving Janis pointed out that this need for conformity can lead to a loss of individuality. Group members may feel that they should go along with what the others think, and there can be an element of obedience as well as conformity, when individuals feel pressure to accept the decisions of the group. There is then a danger of what sociologist William H. Whyte called “groupthink”—when the pressure to conform overrides independent critical thinking. Individual members of a group not only go along with the decisions of the group; they also come to believe that these decisions are always right, and sometimes bad decisions are unanimously endorsed. Another risk is that members begin to feel that their group can do no wrong and is better than other groups, causing conflict between “in-groups” and “out-groups.”

Big fish, little fish?

Similar or like-minded individuals are more likely to form groups. Once in the group, members risk losing their individuality and blindly following the majority, sometimes with sinister consequences.

Allowing dissent

Janis recognized the problems of groupthink, but felt that it could be avoided. It is most likely to develop when team spirit becomes more important than the opinions of individual members. It’s also likely to form if the group is made up of like-minded people to begin with, and if they are faced with a difficult decision. To prevent groupthink, Janis proposed a system of organization that encourages independent thinking. The leader of the group should appear to be impartial, so that members do not feel any pressure to obey. Furthermore, he or she should get the group to examine all the options, and to consult people outside the group, too. Disagreement, Janis argued, is actually a good thing, and he suggested that members should be asked to play “devil’s advocate”—introducing an alternative point of view in order to provoke discussion. In addition to ensuring that the group comes to more rational and fair decisions, allowing members to retain their individuality creates a healthier team spirit than the state of groupthink, which results from conformity and obedience.

IN MY GANG

In an experiment in the 1950s, Muzafer Sherif divided a group of boys at summer camp into two teams. Unaware of the other team, the boys bonded among their own. Later, the teams were introduced and had to compete in a series of contests. All the boys felt that their team was better than the other, and signs of conflict emerged between the teams. Most of the boys also said their best friends were members of their own team, even though many of them had best friends in the other team before the experiment.

We come up with more creative ideas alone, rather than in groups.

See also: How do we MAKE SENSE of the world? | What makes a WINNING team?