Group development and decision-making — common mistakes

When answering a scenario-based question on groupthink, be sure to link specific details from the stimulus material to the theoretical antecedents and symptoms. For example, 'The report states the team met in a private retreat with no outside contact, which is an example of insulation...'

Tuckman's model is presented as a linear sequence, but in reality, it's more fluid. Groups can get stuck in a stage (e.g., 'Storming'), regress to a previous stage (e.g., a change in membership can push a 'Performing' group back to 'Forming'), or even skip stages, although this is less common. The model is a useful framework, not a rigid rule.

This is a common misconception. High group cohesion is only an antecedent of groupthink when combined with other factors, like a directive leader and insulation from outside views. In fact, cohesion is generally very positive for organisational groups, leading to higher satisfaction and performance. The problem arises when the pressure to maintain cohesion and agree becomes more important than making a good decision.

The key difference is role and purpose. A 'devil's advocate' is an officially assigned role with the specific task of critically examining a plan and raising all possible objections to test its strength. This is a constructive, pre-agreed process. Simply being argumentative or negative without a clear purpose can be disruptive and is characteristic of the unresolved conflict in the 'Storming' stage, rather than a functional decision-making strategy.