1. The Organizational Application of Groupthink and its Limitations in Organizations Jim Nam Choi & Myung Un Kim

2. Why Did I Choose This Article? Different approach to groupthink Different approach to groupthink Relates to a construct we may be familiar with Relates to a construct we may be familiar with

3. Purpose of the Study Without explicitly stating a hypothesis, the authors’ goals of the study were twofold 1) To quantitatively assess symptoms of groupthink and defective decision making 2) To focus not only on what groups think, but on what they do

4. Defining Groupthink For the purpose of this study groupthink was defined as… For the purpose of this study groupthink was defined as… “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of actions”

5. The Study 108 employees that make up 30 pre-existing teams in 5 major corporations 108 employees that make up 30 pre-existing teams in 5 major corporations Each team given questionnaire designed to examine relationships between groupthink, team activities, defective decision making and team performance Each team given questionnaire designed to examine relationships between groupthink, team activities, defective decision making and team performance Teams asked to use a recent crisis experienced within the organizational team during the previous year as a referent for answering the questions Teams asked to use a recent crisis experienced within the organizational team during the previous year as a referent for answering the questions

6. Research Design Correlational research Correlational research Simply looked for a correlation between groupthink & defective decision making and performance Simply looked for a correlation between groupthink & defective decision making and performance No manipulations No manipulations Used complex Path Analysis Used complex Path Analysis

7. Results The reliability for their groupthink scale was only 0.25 The reliability for their groupthink scale was only 0.25 Performed factor analysis to identify problem Performed factor analysis to identify problem Discovered two clearly distinguishable factors Discovered two clearly distinguishable factors “concurrence seeking” and “group identity” “concurrence seeking” and “group identity” Continued analysis using these two new factors Continued analysis using these two new factors

8. Two Groupthink Factors

9. More Results Concurrence seeking factor Concurrence seeking factor positively correlated with defective decision making (r=.44) positively correlated with defective decision making (r=.44) No significant relationship with team performance No significant relationship with team performance Group identity factor Group identity factor Negatively correlated with defective decision making (r= -.41) Negatively correlated with defective decision making (r= -.41) Positively correlated with team performance (r=.47) Positively correlated with team performance (r=.47)

10. Limitations of the study The novel contributions to research here were discovered using exploratory post hoc analysis The novel contributions to research here were discovered using exploratory post hoc analysis Only 5 corporations used in study Only 5 corporations used in study Survey method Survey method Rely on subjects to follow instructions correctly Rely on subjects to follow instructions correctly

11. Ways to Improve the Article Give us the geographic locations of the 5 corporations used Give us the geographic locations of the 5 corporations used Culture could have an impact on group dynamics Culture could have an impact on group dynamics Give us the demographics of the research participants Give us the demographics of the research participants Which industries? Which industries?