Organisation Behaviour - II

Group Assignment

Group 11: Hardik Bhardwaj, Anjali Yadav, Gokul Nath PR, Lovish Attri, Navya Saha

Q1. What thoughts and feelings were triggered when we saw the movie/read the case,
and could we relate the movie/case to our experiences, if any?

The movie 12 Angry Men, which follows the story of a jury responsible for delivering a
unanimous verdict in a murder trial, proved to be an extremely insightful experience for all of us.
It gave birth to a lot of thoughts and ideas around group dynamics, majority and minority
viewpoints, and how individual thinking and integrity matters even more when you’re part of a
group. Initially, as we witnessed most of the jury ready to vote guilty - mostly for personal,
prejudiced reasons - without a detailed analysis of the case, even as the life of a man hung in
the balance, a lot of us were uncomfortable and frustrated. Juror 8, the only group member who
believes the accused should be given a fair chance, became the moral compass of the movie as
well as for us as the audience. He acted in the way we hope to act in similar situations - with
unwavering conviction and courage, using critical thinking and rationalising each argument, and
avoiding falling prey to our own heuristics or biases. His behaviour in the movie validated the
importance of speaking up against the majority opinion, and avoiding falling prey to the group’s
biases. And as more and more jurors joined him, the initial frustration gave way to admiration for
Juror 8’s methods, and introspection on whether we would be able to show the same resilience
if in a similar situation.

The case, on the other hand, is centred around the events leading up to the ultimately tragic
decision of launching the space shuttle Challenger, in spite of a major stakeholder’s concerns
about safety and the loss of human life. Reading this, too, evoked similarly strong feelings of
frustration and anger, more so because unfortunately in this case the minority dissenting voice
of Roger Boisjoly was unable to convince the majority of the group about the merits of his
arguments. As we came across more memos and discussions detailing Boisjoly’s almost
prophetic warnings about the O-rings’ failure to seal, and read how his concerns were dismissed
by top officials in both organisations - Thiokol and NASA - the more dissonant we grew,
burdened by the knowledge of the disaster that eventually ended up occuring. This case, then,
served to be an unfortunate but real lesson in the consequences of poor group decision-making.

In our personal lives, almost all of us have experienced similar situations involving groupthink
and imbalance in group dynamics. This rings especially true for those of us with work
experience, since as young professionals we are used to often being a minority voice at the
workplace, having to abandon our ideas or apprehensions to prevent conflict with the majority.
Between the two, the movie served as an ideal example of what we should do in such situations
- be steadfast - but not reluctant - in our beliefs, present rational arguments instead of emotional
ones, and try to look at a problem from every possible angle. However, the case ended up being
a more realistic reminder of how these situations actually come to pass in real life, and hit closer
to home in that sense. But even then, observing such a case from a third-person perspective
helped us realise how to better table our arguments and focus more on evaluating ideas on their
merits and demerits, rather than just persuading each other for the sake of it. Finally, both these
instances highlighted the importance of free, open discussions in group settings wherever
decision-making is involved.

Q2. What were the key learnings from the movie and the case?

First, talking about 12 Angry Men, as mentioned the key learnings turned out to be - the
importance of listening to minority voices in a group discussion, the variety of problems we can
get into when we don’t avoid our biases, and how social pressure to conform can influence
group dynamics. We’re also able to get a visual representation of Tuckman’s theory of group
formation, as the group goes through forming, storming, norming and performing stages as the
movie progresses.

To start with, in the movie Juror 8 represents the power of a well-reasoned minority opinion. As
he discards various arguments - about the knife, the two witnesses and the inconsistencies in
their arguments, about the other jurors’ own shortfall in thinking - he manages to eventually
sway the majority opinion by being consistent, confident, and logical. This way he is also able to
prevent the phenomenon of groupshift, where each member’s individual biases get
compounded and exaggerated when they come together to form a group, leading to risky
decisions. Ironically, we also see the case reverse towards the end, when the majority ends up
becoming the minority but is unable to hold its own in terms of quality arguments, and so
ultimately succumbs.

Initially, we also get to see these biases in action, before Juror 8’s arguments become effective.
For instance, many jurors fall for confirmation bias, and end up selectively only seeking out
evidence and statements that confirm their initial belief in the defendant’s guilt, instead of
objectively evaluating all the facts of the case. Juror 8, however, questions everything critically
and avoids any flawed assumptions or circular reasonings.

Early on in the movie, we also witness many jurors display deindividuation, diluting their
personal responsibilities as a direct result of their group membership. This becomes especially
evident in scenes where the members lash out and even threaten to harm each other for their
viewpoints. However, as Juror 8 pushes for individual accountability, we see the jurors confront
the gravity of their decision with more thoughtfulness and eventually lead a unanimous decision.

Finally, the film also highlights the distinction between task conflict (in this case, the different
opinions of jurors on witness statements, say) and relationship conflict (personal clashes
between Juror 8 and other jury members). Juror 8 ends up introducing constructive task conflict
by questioning the evidence; but other jurors become antagonistic towards him and those that
take his side, leading to relationship conflicts. This was a powerful reminder that while task
conflict can be beneficial for decision making, relationship conflict mostly just derails group
discussions from the primary objective.
Coming on to the Challenger case, we can summarise the learnings in terms of the dangers of
groupthink, once again how cognitive biases play an important role, and how organisational
pressures can often lead to catastrophes.

Groupthink can be both positive and negative, and in this case both NASA and Morton Thiokol
were affected by the phenomenon, wanting to be unanimous in their decisions to the point of
overlooking safety concerns. Many symptoms of groupthink, such as collective rationalisation
and self-censorship, can be clearly seen throughout the group discussions as NASA officials
discount safety warnings and fail to take into account Roger’s reservations, and as Morton
Thiokol engineers and top officials withhold their doubts due to fear of group disapproval.

The case also highlights many important biases. Within NASA, we see an in-group bias emerge
as officials’ favour loyalty to the organization’s goals over Roger and Thiokol’s opinions. NASA’s
decision-making being coloured by their investment in the shuttle program, and the pressure to
stay on schedule for Thiokol, also created an escalation of commitment bias, where both of
them continued to go ahead with the launch despite mounting evidence of danger.

Finally, we can also see anchoring bias in action. NASA officials are anchored by previous (even
if barely) successful shuttle launches that encountered O-ring erosion without any major
disaster, and end up underestimating the risk involved. This case is thus essential to
understanding the various pitfalls we need to avoid when engaging in a group decision making
process.

Q3. How do we expect to apply these learnings at the workplace?

Basis our analyses of 12 Angry Men and the Challenger case, we have thought of the following
applications of our learning in the workplace:

1. Encourage dissent in the workplace. This can be through policies that help improve the
psychological safety of employees and help prevent groupthink, and can range from
whistleblowing policies at an organisation level to feedback systems at a team level.
Creating a culture that values honest and diverse perspectives can help avoid hasty
decision-making and encourage critical evaluation of pros and cons for any decision.

2. Take up a Devil’s Advocate role. 12 Angry Men and the Challenger case both
demonstrate the importance of a dissenting voice, even if it’s a minority. Thus by taking
up a devil’s advocate role during group decision-making processes, we can critically
counter the group’s assumptions and avoid any biases.

3. Sensitise employees to their biases. Understanding biases such as confirmation bias,

sunk cost fallacy, and status quo bias can help improve the quality of decision-making in
an organisation. Thus, providing training to team members on the same can ensure they
avoid falling into these traps and make balanced assessment instead.
Addendum: Similarities and differences in group dynamics

In terms of similarities, we see a lot of commonalities between the two group discussions. In
both cases, the significance of dissent and differing viewpoints is emphasised repeatedly. Both
situations heavily underscore the need to value these diverse perspectives in order to reach a
just conclusion.

Both groups also display similar levels of groupthink, as many members in each group suppress
their doubts and decide to go with what the group believes is the best course of action - be it the
jurors starting with a hasty guilty verdict to avoid debating for too long, or NASA and Thiokol
bypassing dangers to security to stick to their launch schedules. In both cases, these pressures
(at least initially) led the groups to favour quick, less-thorough decisions involving similar high
stakes - about the potential loss of life.

But there are many glaring differences. First and foremost, 12 Angry Men is an ideal,
fictionalised version of how group discussions should be conducted, while the Challenger case
is a more realistic and grounded depiction of how organisational pressure can silence minority
views. Also, while 12 Angry Men takes place in a controlled environment where the jurors are
forced to talk and discuss, with ample time given for debate, the Challenger case is more
time-constrained and offers only virtual discussion opportunities between NASA and Thiokol
which prove to be not as conducive to debate and ends up amplifying the groupthink. This
highlights how situational context also affects the end decision making, and reinforces the belief
that scarcity breeds collaboration since the jurors are all locked up in a room and have to lean
on their mental faculties, while NASA and Thiokol have ample access to resources but are yet
unable to back up their arguments fruitfully.

Thus in 12 Angry Men, Juror 8 ultimately sways the group, leading to a fair consensus, as
polarised views gradually soften up and the jurors begin to listen to reason. But in the
Challenger case Roger ultimately has to quieten up and his opinions are overridden by the
others, resulting in an extreme stance - to launch even in extreme weather - leading to disaster.