Search results

Professional organizations are encouraging accounting educators to better prepare their students for their professional careers by improving students’ interpersonal skills. Although accounting instructors are responding by including group activities in their courses, they may not be considering the negative impact of the phenomenon known as “groupthink” on the outcome of group problem solving. Our search of the Social Science Citation Index (2007) provides evidence that groupthink continues to be an area of research interest in academic disciplines other than accounting. Our search provides no evidence that accounting educators are acknowledging or addressing the potential influences the groupthink dynamic may have on students working in groups. The dynamics involved with groupthink have the potential to affect the quality of decisions made by accounting students in their classroom assignments as well as in their future professional lives. We describe the dynamics leading to groupthink, provide examples from our own experience, and offer accounting educators guidelines to discourage the impact of groupthink on the process of student work groups.

Despite the emphasis on contemporary historical case studies in groupthink research, Janis believed that examining decision‐making processes recorded in antiquity was also relevant. However, neither Janis nor other groupthink researchers have adequately explored the model among decision‐making bodies described in earlier history. The current paper aims to begin to fill this gap by analyzing the judicial and legislative body of ancient Israel, known as the “Sanhedrin,” in the context of Janis's groupthink model.

The authors focus on classic Jewish rabbinic sources such as the Mishna, Talmud, and writings of Maimonides, exploring the functioning of the Sanhedrin, the authoritative body of ancient Israel, in the context of Irving Janis's groupthink model.

The authors highlight the insightful ways the Sanhedrin's members may have avoided groupthink and the symptoms of defective decision‐making that have plagued other groups.

The authors' analysis enables them to further understand the rationale behind many of the Sanhedrin's unique regulations, granting insight into an important and authoritative ancient group.

This analysis of the Sanhedrin's procedures also highlights multiple practical ways that Janis's ideas and prescriptions may be implemented by juries, modern day managers, and organizational bodies.

The authors are the first to explore the functioning of the Sanhedrin in the context of the groupthink model, highlighting the insightful ways its members may have avoided the symptoms of defective decision‐making that have plagued other groups. Their approach should be of interest to researchers and theorists in both the fields of management and history. Importantly, they include practical application relevant to the science of modern organizational behavior.

Utilizes the groupthink framework to analyse successive decisions made by the same group of senior executives of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC). These decisions related to NBC’s flagship late‐night television show, The Tonight Show. Based on this analysis, presents an enhanced groupthink framework that attempts to highlight why defective decision making occurred in one decision‐making situation but not in another consecutive decision. Concludes that the answer lies in the presence of group isolation from qualifed experts and the specific leaders’ behaviours of stating a preferred decision choice and not encouraging member opinions.

This article sets out to revisit Janis' groupthink theory that holds that, when anxiety is present for a decision‐making group, premature concurrence seeking emerges unless other mitigating factors are present. Research from selected segments of the decision making literature are introduced to explain the underlying causes of concurrence seeking. The result is an elaboration of the theory based on a synthesis of older and newer ideas, supporting Janis' core thesis that anxiety triggers this phenomenon.

The paper is conceptual and draws on literature addressing the impact of emotions on decision‐making behaviour; human responses to anxiety, including psychological defence modes and mechanisms; and groupthink research and writing.

The theoretical elaboration of the groupthink model centres on the idea that anxiety associated with a decision task triggers implicit motivations of anxiety reduction in groups, which are enacted through the activation of common defence mechanisms, thus resulting in the symptoms of defective decision making. A table that recasts the symptoms of groupthink as common defence mechanisms is provided.

Suggestions are made for broadening the conceptual base of the groupthink model, including consideration of the research on negative and positive emotions.

The article distinguishes between poor decision making due to groupthink and other causes. Remedies for the emergence of groupthink include better approaches to recognising and surfacing anxiety and other negative emotions, so they can be managed constructively. Such remedies complement more conventional methods of improving group decision making.

The article focuses on the underlying causes of premature concurrence seeking, an aspect of the groupthink model that is not well understood. It builds on Janis' explanation of anxiety as the main cause, by elaborating the linkages between the presence of anxiety, the symptoms of groupthink and the signs of defective decision making. In this, the article draws on research into the effects of negative emotions on decision‐making behaviour and related theories. It synthesises several research streams to provide a more comprehensive explanation of concurrence seeking.

Whereas social cohesion has been widely studied and researched by sociologist and psychologists, its application to public procurement is sparse. This study explores the connection between social cohesion, groupthink, ethical attitudes and ethical behavior of procurement officers. The study is based on a survey of 405 public procurement officers in central government. A cross-sectional survey design was used and a response rate of 58.5% attained. Self report items were used to study all the constructs. All the hypothesized relationships were found to be significant. Social cohesion, groupthink, and ethical attitudes were all significant predictors of ethical behavior, accounting for 56% of the variance. The strength of this prediction suggests the need for concerted policy intervention for dealing with unethical conduct and behavior of the procurement professionals.

Although the concept of groupthink (the extreme concurrence‐seeking tendency displayed by decision making groups), has been an influential one, empirical research has provided equivocal support for the groupthink model. In this paper, we review previous case and laboratory work on groupthink and identify empirical and theoretical inconsistencies. We then describe a model of groupthink as social identity maintenance (SIM) that is capable of reconciling these inconsistencies and summarize laboratory experiments that specifically test the SIM hypothesis. We use the model to suggest possible pitfalls of previous proposals for preventing groupthink when SIM pressures are operative. Finally, we suggest intervention strategies capable of mitigating groupthink due to SIM that have two objectives: (a) the reduction of pressures toward identity protection and (b) the stimulation of intellectual conflict.

This paper utilizes Whyte’s groupthink recast framework to analyze the Major League Umpires Association resignation decision. Our analysis supports the importance of high collective efficacy to groupthink and thus defective decision making. Implications for both research and practice are presented based on our analysis.

Groupthink happens in-group decision-making processes whereby members of a group prematurely arrive at a decision that may indicate consensus but for the aim of protecting group harmony. This limits the contributions of the individuals' talents, ideas, competences and experiences to more effective decisions. Although there are a number of studies on predictors (forecasters) of groupthink, they do not consider the influence of the African cultural aspects of collectivism, high power distance and tolerance on groupthink that may characterise the decision-making context in African settings. It is in that context that this case study analyses groupthink in a public sector organization in Tanzania.

This paper unveils the presence of groupthink predictors that can affect the quality of decisions made in groups within the Tanzania context. The study was conducted in one of the public institutions in Tanzania that is under the Ministry of Home affairs. The study population included Directors, Managers, Heads of units, District registration officers and other officials as shown in Table 1. These are the people who participate in decision-making processes in the organization and were drawn from different offices of the organization including the headquarter office, Kibaha Data centre, District Registration offices from different regions including Dares Salaam, Coast region, Arusha, Mtwara, Mwanza, Manyara, Mbeya, Singida, Dodoma, Geita, Lindi and Njombe – these 12 administrative regions are among the 27 regions that make up the Tanzania mainland. Through simple random and purposive sampling methods, a total of 97 participants participated effectively. The criterion for participation being participants must have been involved with at least one decision-making group experience. The choice of the organization was done on the basis that it is a relatively a new institution of importance; it was also possible to get from it the needed data.

The results of the study show that there is the presence of groupthink predictors of high trust, conformity and promotional leadership in decision-making groups in the organization. Furthermore, the diversity of group members alone indicates to be insufficient reason to avoid Groupthink. It is suggested that other important factors might be at play in group decision making including the influence of African cultural characteristics.

This study was limited to only one institution. For a study of this nature to be undertaken access to data could be a very significant problem. Limiting it to one organization we are familiar with made it a bit easy to achieve access.

Group decision making and groupthink are rarely in discourse in Africa. Tanzania is not isolated from the world, and being a country that unity is a cultural tenet that is promoted at every level from the family to national level (Rwegelera, 2003; Tripp, 1999) effects of groupthink is reasonably conspicuous because of the inbuilt national culture that has shaped people to be tolerant and accepting of different perspectives, ethnic groups, religious and races (Tripp, 1999). The same tolerance and acceptance may be transferred to decision-making groups and easily cause the occurrence of groupthink that can affect the quality of decisions made.

The Tanzania government has dedicated itself to putting strict measures to prohibit unethical and erroneous decisions that cost the nation including reducing employees' misconduct. The findings of this study indicate that there are hidden aspects like groupthink that are not reached by those measures yet ironically impacts the decisions made in organizations and in turn costs organizations and the country at large and calls for the government and its institutions together with the private sector to be awakened and alerted if they are dedicated and concerned about the quality of decisions they make.

This is an original research work building on previous research. Some findings on groupthink and implications have Western origins. In Africa, we need to figure out what is making the continent not to make significant steps to change the social-economic environment. This study highlights to both African academics and leaders with no management background to make them understand groupthink as a phenomena that has implications to quality decisions. It will also prompt similar studies and therefore widen understanding on decisions making.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the criminogenic nature of isomorphism and groupthink in business organisations with a view to developing a conceptual model of the criminalisation process leading to criminal behaviour within businesses.

This paper draws on institutional theory and social psychology theory to discuss how isomorphic and groupthink processes may lead to criminal behaviour in the corporate world. The paper is based on a rigorous review of the relevant literature and theoretical frameworks regarding isomorphic dynamics, processes, factors, forces and mechanisms in the business context. The review was guided by a question of how isomorphic and groupthink processes can transform business organisations and its members into offenders. The approach applied was to transfer the existing theories of isomorphism and groupthink into the field of criminology, in order to devise a new model of the process of criminalisation.

The effects of isomorphic and groupthink processes can have a criminogenic effect on businesses and individuals in organisational settings which may coerce agents to engage in criminal behaviour. In crime-facilitative circumstances, isomorphism and groupthink foster criminal activity by cultivating homogeneous behaviour, conformity, resemblance, shared values and identical ways of thinking across and within firms. This herd behaviour can be regarded as one of the explanations for the pervasiveness of criminal and unethical behaviour in the corporate world, the consequences of which could be devastating.

This is a theoretical analysis, not one based on empirical findings, though it does suggest a model for future testing.

This study explains the criminogenic nature of isomorphic and groupthink processes and contributes to the debate on the casualisation of corporate crime. This has important implications for the deterrence of illegal and unethical activities at both the organisational and institutional levels.

This study provides a conceptual model of the criminalisation process in businesses fostered by criminogenic isomorphism and groupthink.

This study explores the effects of different structures of accountability on the development of groupthink. Specifically, the differences between individual and collective accountability are examined and contrasted to a condition with no accountability. The groupthink phenomenon can be differentiated into collective avoidance, arising from a pessimistic perception of a decisional issue, and collective overoptimism. It is argued that structures of accountability can either promote or reduce groupthink, depending upon the way group members perceive the decisional issue. We tested the hypothesis that accountability can prevent the collective‐avoidance type of groupthink, and that individual accountability will be more effective in doing so than collective accountability, by preventing the possibility to “hide in the crowd.” The results confirm that under conditions conducive to collective avoidance, individual accountability is more effective in reducing groupthink‐like tendencies than collective accountability. However, group members expecting to be collectively responsible still display less symptoms of groupthink than control groups. In particular, accountability makes groups display more difficulty to reach consensus, stimulates group members to try to influence the decision making, results in a more equal dispersion of influence within the group, and in less risky decisions. Some methodological concerns regarding research on groupthink and accountability, and the implications of the findings for future research in this area are discussed.