How Groupthink Shapes (and Misshapes) Government Decisions
Have you ever heard the phrase, “You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts”? It’s a striking sentiment, but what if the problem goes deeper than just misinformation? What if the challenge lies in how decisions are made and how groupthink shapes the narratives around those decisions? It’s a comforting idea: facts are out there, waiting to enlighten us if we’d just sit still long enough to absorb them. But what if the problem isn’t just ignorance or misinformation? What if the way governments process information and make decisions—influenced by social pressures, political incentives, control issues, and groupthink—is designed to keep decision-makers comfortable in their own bubbles? And what if this affects not just politicians but all of us?
Before you click away, let me assure you: this isn’t a hit piece on "the other side." This article isn’t about how some party or group is wrong, and if only they were more enlightened, the world would be better. No, it’s about all of us—me, you, elected officials, and policymakers—and how groupthink and tribal speak pull a sneaky trick: they don’t just try to guide decisions; they try to affirm who we are, and that makes challenging our beliefs and actions a whole lot harder.
The Identity Trap in Government Decision-Making
Here’s a thought experiment: imagine you’re a newly elected official. You’re asked to vote on a proposed city tree code. Environmentalists argue that the code is necessary to preserve mature trees, protect biodiversity, and combat climate change. On the other hand, developers claim that the code’s restrictions on tree removal would make new housing projects economically unfeasible or even impossible. The facts are nuanced, but the loudest voices in your bubble—and your most active supporters—are clearly aligned with one side. This type of binary decision-making often fails to create space for collaboration and compromise, leaving both sides feeling dissatisfied and overlooking innovative solutions.
Chances are, you align with your group. Why? Because issues like this aren’t just about facts. They’re about identity. Psychologists call this "identity-protective cognition." We’re wired to interpret information in ways that reinforce our sense of belonging. For elected officials, this means that decisions often reflect their party's priorities, voter base, or a sense of maintaining control, not just the evidence.
Consider how often you hear phrases from our leaders like “The stakes are too high to leave this in the wrong hands…” or “No one understands this issue better than we do.” This isn’t just political spin; it’s an invitation to see policies not as solutions to problems but as markers of loyalty. Supporting a policy that reinforces your team’s identity or consolidates control often feels like the natural choice.
The “Science” of Rationalizing Decisions
Here’s where it gets even trickier: studies show that the more skilled someone is at analyzing data, the more likely they are to interpret it in ways that align with their social group. Yes, you read that right. Being good at logic doesn’t make you less biased; it makes you better at defending your bias with seemingly sound arguments. This dynamic can derail evidence-based policymaking, eroding trust in governance.
Take a 2013 study that presented people with the same set of data but framed it in two different contexts: one about skin cream effectiveness and the other about gun control. People were asked to interpret and speak to the results. People performed equally well on the skin cream problem, regardless of their political leanings. But when the same data was presented as evidence for or against gun control, accuracy dropped—and partisan reasoning took over. People with the highest numeracy skills were more inclined to rationalize the results to align with their political leanings. This demonstrates how cognitive biases can override analytical reasoning, illustrating the broader challenge of how such biases undermine evidence-based governance.
Now imagine this dynamic playing out in a government setting. Decision-makers, surrounded by advisors, lobbyists, and voters who share their worldview, are rarely incentivized to ask, “What’s the most accurate interpretation of this data?” Instead, the question often becomes, “How does this interpretation serve my political or social standing or help maintain control?” When facts conflict with group beliefs, they’re often ignored, downplayed, or reframed.
The Miami Example: Breaking the Mold
Let’s shift gears to Miami, a city that has become a beacon of creative thinking and community-focused governance. For example, the city’s Resilient305 initiative has garnered praise for its collaborative approach to addressing climate challenges. This program unites local governments, nonprofits, and community members to create actionable strategies for enhancing resilience against sea-level rise and other environmental threats. Faced with rising sea levels, Miami’s leaders had every excuse to fall into groupthink—blaming outside factors, deflecting responsibility, or sticking to entrenched ideologies. Instead, the city leaned into bold, nonpartisan approaches. From pioneering climate resilience initiatives like elevating roads and updating building codes to investing in urban green spaces, Miami tackled challenges head-on.
Miami's focus on collaboration makes it unique: city officials worked alongside businesses, scientists, and community groups to shape solutions. This model shows what’s possible when governments step outside their bubbles and prioritize collective, long-term outcomes over short-term political gains. The result? Policies that serve the broader community, not just the loudest voices.
The Calgary Model: Collaborative Solutions in Action
Another city that broke free from the bubble is Calgary, Canada, during its response to the opioid crisis and broader mental health challenges. Under the leadership of Mayor Naheed Nenshi, Calgary prioritized shared public values over divisive rhetoric, emphasizing outcomes like stigma reduction, increased education, and improved public health.
Calgary’s approach was rooted in coalition-building. The city formed a broad partnership with stakeholders, including health services, law enforcement, community advocates, and local nonprofits. This ensured diverse perspectives were represented, helping to build trust and legitimacy for their initiatives.
A key part of Calgary’s success was its iterative learning process. Instead of waiting for perfect solutions, the city launched pilot programs to test new ideas, gather feedback, and refine strategies. This flexibility allowed them to adapt to real-world challenges and focus on practical, data-informed outcomes.
Moreover, Calgary’s leaders openly addressed barriers to collaboration. They facilitated honest discussions about resource allocation, accountability, and decision-making processes, ensuring that every stakeholder felt heard. This transparency fostered confidence in their ability to tackle the crisis together.
The Calgary model demonstrates that by focusing on shared values, fostering collaboration, and embracing adaptability, governments can address complex social issues without falling into the trap of identity-driven groupthink.
Groupthink and Special Interests: A Perfect Storm
While Miami and Calgary offer hopeful examples, many governments remain trapped by the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists. These entities excel at leveraging identity politics to push agendas that may not align with the public good. By framing their goals as essential to a group’s identity—whether it’s small business owners, environmentalists, or specific industries—they sway policymakers to prioritize narrow interests over evidence-based solutions.
For instance, a fossil fuel lobbyist might argue that transitioning to renewable energy threatens "hardworking, blue-collar families," creating an emotional appeal that resonates with certain voters. Similarly, a tech company might frame privacy concerns as “antiquated thinking” to push through data-sharing policies that benefit their bottom line. In both cases, identity becomes a tool to suppress critical thinking and nuanced debate.
How Governments Can Break Free from the Bubble
How can governments overcome these challenges if groupthink and special interests dominate decision-making? The stakes are high: groupthink stifles innovation and erodes public trust in governance by prioritizing loyalty over evidence-based solutions. Here are some recommendations based on evidence and practical models:
Encourage Diverse Voices: Governments should intentionally include dissenting perspectives in decision-making. This isn’t about inviting contrarians for the sake of it but ensuring that policy discussions include a range of views—from different parties, industries, and communities. Structured debates can reveal blind spots and lead to better outcomes.
Create Space for Deliberation: Modern governance often prioritizes speed over thoughtfulness. Social media demands instant reactions, and political cycles push for quick wins. Governments need spaces—such as independent panels, extended public consultations, or "deliberative polling"—where evidence can be weighed without the pressure of immediate decision-making.
Reward Curiosity, Not Loyalty: Many political systems value party loyalty over critical thinking. Changing this culture requires institutions to recognize policymakers for asking tough questions and considering unpopular but evidence-backed ideas, not just for toeing the line.
Invest in Science Communication Training: Local, Regional, and State leaders can benefit from workshops and resources that teach how to communicate complex scientific data effectively, making it accessible and less prone to misinterpretation.
Use Pilot Programs to Test Solutions: As seen in Calgary, piloting initiatives on a small scale allows governments to experiment, learn, and adapt without committing vast resources upfront. This iterative approach builds confidence in solutions that work.
Establish Cross-Sector Partnerships: Collaborating with nonprofits, businesses, and academic institutions can bring diverse expertise to the table. For example, New York City's partnership with Columbia University helped develop its "Cool Neighborhoods NYC" initiative, which uses data to target investments in tree planting and cooling infrastructure to reduce heat-related health risks.
Collaborate Across Levels of Government: Many challenges, such as homelessness, across all levels of government—from city councils to state and regional agencies. Addressing these issues effectively requires a coordinated approach where cities, counties, regional governments, and state governments all have a seat at the decision-making table. For example, tackling homelessness demands alignment in funding, strategy, and execution to ensure a comprehensive solution that simultaneously addresses housing, addiction, mental health, and employment services. By fostering these collaborations, governments can better allocate resources and deliver holistic solutions to complex problems.
Adopt Outcome-Based Program Management: Governments should shift from merely tracking inputs or activities to focusing on measurable outcomes that reflect real-world impacts. For instance, Baltimore's "CitiStat" program used data-driven performance management to identify inefficiencies, reduce crime, and improve city services. By defining success metrics and holding agencies accountable, cities can ensure that policies achieve tangible results and build public trust.
Conclusion
The challenges we face today, such as homelessness, public safety, and education reform, are too complex for any single voice or ideology to solve. They require us to sit together at the table, not as adversaries but as collaborators, and to ask the tough, thoughtful questions that lead to real solutions.
As the Mayor of Sherwood, Oregon, I have witnessed what true collaborative governance looks like. With the support and collaboration of our amazing staff, Sherwood's City Council consistently models the principles I advocate here: fostering open dialogue, prioritizing shared goals over partisan divides, and embracing diverse perspectives. Their approach has inspired me to think differently about political discourse and reaffirmed my belief that transformative governance is within reach when we commit to these ideals.
Governance, at its best, inspires, informs, and unites. However, achieving this requires intentional effort—a willingness to listen deeply, challenge assumptions, and seek understanding. It’s about breaking free from the comfort of groupthink and leaning into curiosity about others, ourselves, and the systems shaping our decisions. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not perfect in this. Like anyone, I have my blind spots and biases, but I’m committed to being more curious, asking better questions, and continuously learning. As Walt Whitman reminds us: “Be curious, not judgmental.”
I leave you with this Socratic call to action: How will you strive to replace certainty with curiosity, control with results, slogans with substance, and division with dialogue? If we can all do that, I truly believe we can create policies that uplift everyone and build a more united, thoughtful society.
More Reading, Listening & Watching:
Miami-Dade Sea Level Rise Strategy
Research: Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government (Yale Law School. Dr Kahan