Linking groupthink to unethical behavior in organizations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Psychological Bulletin, 1993
This article provides a comprehensive evaluation of the groupthink phenomenon . Our evaluation indicates that research does not provide convincing support for the validity of the groupthink phenomenon or for the suggestion that groupthink characteristics lead to negative outcomes. This review, coupled with evidence from other literature suggested by a problem-solving perspective and a direct examination of groupthink implicit assumptions, guided the development of a new, more general model termed the general group problem-solving model. This model incorporates a variety of antecedent conditions, emergent group characteristics, decision process characteristics, and group decision outcomes. Following the review and model development, we discuss potential concerns relating to our model, address the allure of groupthink, and present implications of our analysis for group problem solving as well as directions for future research.
A Review of research on Groupthink
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1990
Despite an extensive use of the groupthink model in various areas of social science, there are few empirical studies testing groupthink and many criticisms of it. In order to better understand the concept of groupthink, and to set a foundation for future research, this paper summarizes previous empirical studies on groupthink and indicates problems (e.g., limited inclusion of variables and an inappropriate usage of measurement modes) that exist throughout those studies. Recommendations for future research are then provided. KEY WORDS Groupthink Group decision making Modes of measurement Janis (1972, 1982b) induced his groupthink model from descriptions of the settings, decision-making procedures, and outcomes of six major historical events in American governmental policy. Groupthink refers to the tendency for cohesive groups to become so concerned about group solidarity that they fail to critically and realistically evaluate their decisions and antecedent assumptions. According to Janis, this potentially fatal flaw in group decision making occurs when certain antecedent conditions, in addition to moderate or high group cohesiveness, are present. As shown in Exhibit 1, Janis (1982b) classified these antecedent factors into two categories; structural faults of the organization' and provocative situational contexts.* These two categories of antecedent factors, along with group cohesiveness, cause groupthink, which is manifested by eight ~yrnptoms.~ These eight symptoms of groupthink in turn cause seven symptoms4 of defective decision making that lower the probability of successful outcomes. The concept of groupthink is quite popular nowadays and has considerable practical value, because it not only is at variance with research results that indicate the performance of highly cohesive groups (e.g., Keller, 1986), but also provides a detailed description of how an important problem in cohesive decision-making groups occurs. Nevertheless, there are many problematic issues associated with the groupthink model. Problems exist both in the methodology that Janis used to derive the model and in the model itself. Though Janis' work is sometimes cited as an excellent example of the use of the case-study method in theory development (e.g., Forsyth, 1983, p. 33), his reliance on the case study approach has also led to criticisms (e.g., Tetlock, 1979). Regarding the model itself, Whyte (1989) argued that groupthink, although relevant, is an incomplete explanation for the occurrence of decision fiascos because it leaves out some important variables such as the notions of framing effects, risk seeking in the domain of losses, and group polarization. Further, even with the variables used in the model, Janis' broad hypotheses only link categories of variables with one another, leaving specific relationships among the variables up to the imagination of the readers. For example, Janis indicated that cohesiveness
The Organizational Application of Groupthink and Its Limitations in Organizations
This study examined groupthink and team activities in 30 organizational teams faced with impending crises. The results show that the groupthink symptoms consisted of 2 factors. Surprisingly, 1 factor of groupthink was significantly and positively related to team performance, whereas the other showed an insignificant negative correlation to performance. Moreover, the symptoms of detective decision making were not significant predictors of team performance. Overall, team activities had a stronger impact on performance than groupthink. The results imply that groupthink may have an indirect effect on performance mediated by team activities. This study demonstrates the potential positive implications of groupthink in organizational teams and raises a question about the empirical coherence of groupthink as a phenomenon.
Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 2013
In this article we (a) describe our perspective on 'received wisdom' and 'groupthink' and how these phenomena affect organizational ethical culture, (b) provide numerous examples of the negative effects of 'unwise' received wisdom and groupthink on poor ethical decisions and actions taken by organizations in recent history, (c) discuss our concept of ethical organizational cultures based on character, and (d) outline intentional steps organizational leaders can take to see that received wisdom leads to an ethical organizational culture based on character. INTRODUCTION 'Received wisdom' in our view simply means the normative 'folk wisdom' that everyone has come to accept in society in general and-more specifically for our purposes-in an organization. In other words, it is the set of beliefs and standards (norms) that people have come to accept as true in a given organization. Received wisdom is an important aspect of organizational culture and-in many cases-is a primary vehicle (along with group-administered sanctions) for transmitting organizational culture. Unfortunately, received wisdom may not always be wise and it may not always be the truth, even if the general or critical masses of the organization believe it to be. This is certainly the case when one considers 'groupthink' and its implications for unethical decisions or acts in organizations over the years. Irving Janis' (1972, 1982) groundbreaking research on 'groupthink' demonstrates the presence of strong pressures towards conformity in these groups: individual members suspend their own critical judgment and right to question, with the result that they make bad and/or immoral decisions. This pressure can be viewed as an outcome of an organizational culture that accepts certain unwise beliefs or standards for behavior from its employees (i.e., received wisdom). Poor ethical organizational culturessuch as cultures of defiance, neglect, and grudging compliance toward ethical standards-may be the unfortunate result of such pressures (Sauser, 2008; Sauser & Sims, 2007). If, instead, a strong organizational ethical culture based on moral character is to prevail, it must be built intentionally by the leaders of the organization. In this article we (a) describe our perspective on 'received wisdom' and 'groupthink' and how these phenomena affect organizational ethical culture, (b) provide examples of the negative effects of 'unwise' received wisdom and groupthink on poor ethical decisions and actions taken by organizations in recent history, (c) discuss our concepts of ethical cultures of defiance, neglect, and grudging compliance as
Organizational Structure, Communication, and Group Ethics
American Economic Review, 2010
This paper investigates experimentally how a group's structure affects its ethical behavior towards a passive outsider. We analyze one vertical and two horizontal structures (one requiring consensus, one implementing a compromise by averaging proposals). We also control for internal communication. The data support our main predictions: (1) horizontal, averaging structures are more ethical than vertical structures (where subordinates do not feel responsible) and than consensual structures (where responsibility is dynamically diffused); (2) communication makes vertical structures more ethical (subordinates with voice feel responsible); (3) with communication, vertical structures are more ethical than consensual structures (where in-group bias hurts the outsider). (JEL C92, D23, L21, M14)
Organizational Tonypandy: Lessons from a Quarter Century of the Groupthink Phenomenon
Organizational behavior and human decision …, 1998
We adopt the role of devil's advocate, arguing that the quartercentury experience with groupthink represents an unfortunate episode in the history of group problem solving research. In view of the facts that there has been remarkably little empirical support for the groupthink phenomenon, that the phenomenon rests on arguable assumptions, that published critiques of groupthink have generally been ignored by groupthink researchers, and that groupthink is presented as fact in journal articles and textbooks, we see continued advocacy of groupthink as a form of organizational Tonypandy, in which knowledgeable individuals fail to speak out against widely accepted but erroneous beliefs. We explore the nature
Groupthink: Group Dynamics and the Decision-making Process
Library and Leadership Management, 2015
sat around the seminar table wondering what was going to happen next. Lisa, the director of their small liberal arts college library had been talking about 'change' and 'the future' for the past twenty minutes. This was their first meeting of the new school year and Lisa was just full of plans she had been working on over the summer. Lisa explained that after an article in the student newspaper about the new learning commons at the nearby community college, students and faculty at their school started talking about changes they would like to see in their own library. Over the summer, some had even approached Lisa to see what changes could be implemented.
Reacting to Unfairness: Group Identity and Dishonest Behavior
Employees’ misconduct can be attributed to experiences of unfairness. Does this dishonest reaction change when employees identify with the whole organization or with a subunit only? We experimentally investigate whether individuals are more likely to engage in dishonest behavior after having experienced unfairness perpetrated by a peer with a salient group identity. Two peers generate an endowment together, but only one can decide how to share it. They either share the same group identity or have distinct group identities. Then, they approach a task in which they can opportunistically engage in dishonest behavior. Our results show that when peers share the same group identity, unfair distributive decisions do not trigger a dishonest reaction. In contrast, when different group identities coexist, dishonest behavior is observed as a reaction to unfairness.
Ethical Decision-Making: Group Diversity Holds the Key
Journal of Leadership Accountability and Ethics, 2012
Both researchers and practitioners have a growing interest in ethical decision-making in the workplace. While ethics has been explored at the individual (e.g., cognitive moral development, moral identity) and organizational level (e.g., ethical culture, corporate social responsibility), few studies have examined ethical decision-making at the group level. The current study examined the extent to which ethical group decision-making varied as a function of racial diversity and time. Using experimental methods, results reveal that heterogeneous groups were more likely to make ethical decisions than homogenous groups. Practical implications and future research directions are discussed.
Groups and Their Effects in Organizations
The human is a social being and survives as the part of a group in every field of life from the birth. Group is a community consisting of one or more individuals who interact with each other in order to accomplish a certain goal. The groups are created formally and informally within the organization at different times and for different goals. Those groups have the negative and positive influences on the organization structure and function. In this work, the group concept in the organizations is studied and the influence of group behaviors within the organizations is discussed conceptually.