Exercise 2: Identifying Groupthink Symptoms in a Real Situation — Possible Solution
======================================================================================

This exercise has no single correct situation to describe - the point
is honestly applying the chapter's own four symptoms to something
real. A worked example, using "a team deciding to ship a software
feature on a fixed deadline despite one engineer's concerns about
inadequate testing":

SYMPTOMS PRESENT:
- Illusion of invulnerability: the team's past releases had gone
  smoothly, creating overconfidence that this one would too, despite
  a genuinely different, riskier situation this time.
- Direct pressure on dissenters: the concerned engineer was told
  the deadline was fixed and "we'll fix bugs after launch if we need
  to," rather than the specific testing concern being addressed
  directly.
- Self-censorship: at least one other engineer privately shared the
  same doubts but didn't raise them in the actual planning meeting,
  not wanting to be the second person slowing things down.

A STRUCTURAL REMEDY (not just "try harder to speak up"): designating
one team member, on a rotating basis, as an explicit "risk advocate"
whose formal job in each release-planning meeting is to argue for
delay or additional testing - removing the personal/social cost of
being "the person holding things up," since it becomes an assigned
role rather than an individual choice to dissent. This mirrors the
chapter's own remedy of assigning a designated devil's advocate role,
rather than relying on individual courage to overcome social pressure
each time.

ANSWER: (worked example) A rushed feature-launch decision showed
illusion of invulnerability, direct pressure on a dissenting engineer,
and self-censorship from a second engineer with the same doubts. A
structural remedy - a rotating, formally assigned "risk advocate" role
in planning meetings - removes the personal cost of dissent by making
it an assigned responsibility rather than an individual choice, instead
of simply asking people to "speak up more."

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This applies the chapter's own specific symptoms to a genuine
situation and proposes a real structural (not just attitudinal) fix,
matching what the exercise explicitly asked for.