| Abstract: | This article critically examines Janis's recommendations for preventing groupthink in high-level policymaking. It puts forward three models of small group functioning in government, each of which highlights different dimensions of collegial policymaking and distinct criteria for evaluating group performance. Each model also inspires different proposals for groupthink prevention and improvement of group performance in general. Proposals for designing and managing high-level groups in government need to take into account these multiple perspectives. Furthermore, their proponents should be aware of the institutionalized and competitive context in which political decision groups operate. Evaluations of their performance and proposals for reforming them are inevitably tied up in this process. This has important implications for the feasibility of recommendations set forth by small group analysts. The article concludes with an agenda for increasing the policy relevance and practical feasibility of research on political decision groups. |
