Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

MANAGING GROUP DECISION MAKING PROCESSES INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND GROUPTHINK

MANAGING GROUP DECISION MAKING PROCESSES INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY 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 collectiveavoidance 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 groupthinklike 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Conflict Management Emerald Publishing

MANAGING GROUP DECISION MAKING PROCESSES INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND GROUPTHINK

Download PDF
25 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/managing-group-decision-making-processes-individual-versus-collective-K4TeiWVEa7

References (24)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1044-4068
DOI
10.1108/eb022695
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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 collectiveavoidance 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 groupthinklike 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.

Journal

International Journal of Conflict Management – Emerald Publishing

Published: Feb 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.