[acb-hsp] Support group: Interventions for Groupthink

[J.Rayl]

Group Support
 Systems: an Organization Development Intervention to Combat Groupthink
by Shaila M. Miranda , Carol Saunders
INTRODUCTION
Decisions were made by Johnson's advisory group to escalate the war in Vietnam during
the period from 1964 through 1967 despite strong warning from intelligence experts
within the U.S. government, leaders of the United Nations, practically all of America's
allies, and influential sectors of the American public. President Johnson's advisory
group apparently ignored until too late the mounting signs that its decisions to
escalate the war were having devastating political repercussions within the United
States.
The "gung-ho, can-do" ethic of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
made it difficult to raise concerns about safety seals on the space shuttle's booster
rockets. The sad result was the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in January
1986 (Jania, 1989).
What do these decisions have in common? They have been cited as examples of groupthink
(Janis, 1982, 1989). The groupthink problem, as identified by Janis (1982), refers
to the propensity of
groups
 to respond to interpersonal pressure in such a manner that group members' strivings
for unanimity override their motivation to analyze alternative courses of action
realistically. Thus, groupthink refers to a defective mode of decision-making pursued
by
groups
 that emphasizes consensus rather than a careful analysis of options. This phenomenon
increases the likelihood of poor decisions (Ibid.).
Organizational Development Techniques for Groupthink
Although Janis' Groupthink is heavily cited throughout group-focused research, it
has had little impact on Organization Development (OD) diagnostic techniques and
intervention designs (Taras, 1991). ODers seem to prefer interpersonal techniques.
(An exception is a two pronged approach used in a Human Resources department (Golembiewski,
1990. An early focus on interaction shifted to a focus on changes in policies and
procedures.) One survey of 45 companies engaged in OD-type activities indicated that
98 percent of these firms used participative methods in identifying and solving organizational
problems (von Bergen and Kirk, 1978).
Unfortunately, ODers frequently fail to adopt Janis' recommendations for structural
and procedural changes in groups
. Further intervention strategies have not been developed for
groups
 in the throes of groupthink. All groupthink "cures," including Janis', are ex post
facto suggestions for preventing groupthink in the next round of decision-making
(Taras, 1991). Group
Support
 Systems (GSS) provide ODers procedural mechanisms to address this criticism and
correct defective groupthink decision-making situations.
Group Support Systems
In his analysis of presidential decision-making, Alexander George (1980) notes that
"ever-present constraints" often require the chief executive to consider "tradeoffs"
in the his search for decisions of high quality in foreign affairs as well as in
domestic policy. These constraints include limited time, lack of expertise and other
policymaking resources for dealing with complex issues, need for acceptability and
need for consensus. GSS offer the possibility of addressing such constraints simultaneously
as time, insulation, and undesirable affiliative problems to achieve higher quality
results.
GSS are an advanced information technology that combine communication, computer,
and decision technologies to assist groups
 involved with collaborative work (Poole and DeSanctis, 1988). GSS structure the
group decision process in three major ways: (1) focusing group members' efforts on
the task or problem to be solved by the group; (2) equalizing group member participation;
and (3) increasing consensus-reaching (Pinsonneault and Kraemer, 1989).
GSS researchers have demonstrated several advantages associated with GSS. They propose
that GSS use may transform inefficient and ineffective group meeting processes associated
with groupthink into more productive processes (Jessup, Connolly, and Galegher, 1990).
GSS use has been found to increase the quality of group decisions (Bui et al., 1987;
George, Northcraft, and Nunamaker, 1987; Sharda, Barr, and McDonnell, 1988; Steeb
and Johnson, 1981). The purpose of this study is to determine empirically whether
GSS use inhibits the occurrence of groupthink.
This article reviews conditions leading to the development of groupthink and subsequent
groupthink outcomes. It delineates the manner in which GSS precludes the development
of groupthink. The preliminary results of a study assessing the impact of GSS use
on some aspects of groupthink are then presented and discussed.
GROUPTHINK MODELS
Janis (1982) proposed that aspects of a group's history or dynamics or the nature
of the task predispose certain meeting behaviors and dynamics that lead to groupthink.
These are antecedents of groupthink. Antecedents of groupthink promote concurrence-seeking
within
groups. This results in groupthink symptoms and negative group outcomes (Ibid.).
This section examines the relationship between groupthink antecedents and the development
of groupthink symptoms. The relationships between antecedent, groupthink symptoms,
and outcomes are illustrated in Figure 1. (Figure 1 omitted)
Group Antecedents
* Cohesiveness. According to Janis (1982), the strongest antecedent condition is
cohesiveness. The importance of cohesiveness in formulating groupthink situations
has been confirmed in subsequent research (McCauley and Esser, 1984; Fodor and Smith,
1982; Flowers, 1977). However, cohesiveness alone is not adequate to create a groupthink
situation.
* Structural Antecedents. Group structural antecedents must also be present. The
four structural antecedent conditions discussed by Janis (1982) are: (1) insulation
of the group from experts and opinions outside the group; (2) lack of tradition of
impartial leadership; (3) lack of norms requiring methodical procedures; and (4)
homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
Some posited linkages between structural antecedents and groupthink have been substantiated
in subsequent research, Researchers found that directive leadership within a group
is a strong determinant of groupthink (Leana, 1985; Flowers, 1977). The level of
group insulation can also induce groupthink (McCauley, 1989; Moorhead and Montanari,
1986). Finally, research indicates that member homogeneity within a group leads to
the development of groupthink (Tetlock, 1979).
Other empirical work has suggested a relationship between antecedent conditions and
poor group decision-making processes. Callaway and Esser (1984) report that, when
highly cohesive
groups
 used inadequate decision procedures, they made poorer decisions. Flowers (1977)
and Leana (1985) found that
groups with directive leaders generated fewer solutions and used less information
than did groups
 with more participative leaders. Poor group awareness of information surrounding
a problem or group insulation may result in vulnerability to groupthink (Janis, 1982).
Homogeneity of group ideology also predisposes groupthink (Tetlock, 1979).
Task Antecedents
Still another groupthink antecedent is the group's task. McGrath (1984) categorizes
task types on their ability to evoke cognitive as well as on the conceptual versus
behavioral requirements of the task. Two task types were chosen for this study: intellective
and judgmental tasks. Both these tasks are conceptual in nature but differ in the
amount of cognitive conflict they evoke.
Intellective tasks involve problem solving where a single correct answer exists.
These tasks require groups
 to identify relevant information and correctly process this information. Group members
usually have a consensus on the objective(s) of the task and, therefore, tend to
experience lower amounts of conflict.
Cognitive conflict or judgmental tasks involve resolving conflicting viewpoints in
addition to identifying and processing information. In this case, group members are
often in conflict about the objectives that they should achieve. These tasks involve
moral judgments by group members and are more likely to evoke groupthink (Janis,
1982).
Groupthink Symptoms
Three categories of symptoms characterize the historic fiascoes described earlier
(Ibid.). These symptoms, which tend to be especially pronounced in cohesive
groups
, reinforce one another. The first type of symptom, overestimation of the group's
power and morality, is displayed when the group experiences an illusion of invulnerability
and an implicit assurance of its own morality. The second type of symptom, closemindedness,
results in the group ignoring any information that contradicts group members' opinions
and in perceiving the opposition as immoral and stupid persons with whom there should
be no compromise. Finally, pressure toward uniformity result in self-censorship by
dissident members, pressure on any member disinclined to conform, an illusion of
unanimity, and the appearance of "mindguards" who protect the group from contradictory
information.
Groupthink Outcomes
When a policy-making group displays one or all of these symptoms, members perform
their tasks ineffectively. As a result, the group's decisions will very likely be
of poor quality. A comparative study of groupthink and non-groupthink decisions by
national leaders, using systematic content analysis techniques to assess the quality
of public policy statements, found significant differences across the two
groups
 in cognitive complexity. Groupthink decisions were less cognitively complex and
more simplistic than were the non-groupthink decisions (Tetlock, 1979).
Thus, groupthink results in the consideration of fewer alternative solutions and
an incomplete evaluation of alternatives considered. Additionally,
groups
 that succumb to groupthink conduct an incomplete search for relevant information,
fail to surface and consider objectives during the decision-making process, often
process available information incorrectly, and do not completely work out implementation
plans (Janis, 1982). These problems are often manifested in poorer, or even catastrophic,
decisions (Ibid.).
SYSTEMS TO PREVENT GROUPTHINK
The underlying premise for this research is that GSS will mediate the effect of antecedent
conditions by reducing concurrence-seeking and, thereby, inhibiting groupthink. GSS
represent a set of technologies designed to
support
 and structure group interactions for the purpose of information exchange, problem
solving decision-making, and conflict resolution. They
support
 activities such as idea creation, message exchange, project planning, document preparation,
and joint planning and decision-making (Poole and DeSanctis, 1989). GSS are believed
to break down hierarchies that dominate typical meetings (Zigura, Poole, and DeSanctis
1988) and to equalize the participation of all group members. As a result, GSS features
help reduce effects of the antecedent conditions on decision-making processes
Within the context of conference support
, GSS usually consist of a network PC for each group member with a display at the
front of the room that presents aggregated group opinions. Specific GSS features
that help mitigate the negative effects of antecedent conditions are discussed in
detail in Miranda (19xx) and Chidambaram, Bostrom, and Wynne, 1990-1991). They include
process structuring, a public screen, anonymity, simultaneity, extended information
processing, and access to external information.
GSS use promotes process structuring (Nunamaker et al., 1991; Bostrom and Anson,
1988). Process structuring can overcome lack of methodical procedures and promote
adequate analysis of all alternatives. It also serves to focus the group on the task
at hand.
The public screen available in most GSS environments helps direct the group's attention
on task-related issues being displayed on the screen and shifts the focus away from
the individuals presenting the ideas. This task focus helps overcome the undesirable
affiliative features of cohesion such as discouraging dissent. Focusing on the task
may help encourage the dissent necessary for evaluating alternatives fully.
GSS provide group members with the ability to contribute their ideas and opinions
anonymously and simultaneously. Members' contributions are not individually identifiable;
they do not have to wait their turn or act aggressively to present their opinions
to the group. These features encourage equal participation and influence within the
group. They also combat the effects of directive leadership where one or a few individuals
dominate the group discussion.
Anonymity, simultaneity, process structuring, and the public screen also foster productive
conflict management. These features contribute to a task-focus thereby preventing
unproductive conflict that is unrelated to the issues at hand. They also promote
group members' freedom to participate in the meeting. A high amount of issue-based
conflict results. This conflict promotes an understanding of the problem and of opposing
frames of reference as well as an exploration of alternatives. Consequently, a greater
differentiation among group members' opinions may occur.
GSS extend the information processing capabilities of groups (Nunamaker et al., 1991;
Bistrom and Anson, 1988). This feature enables
groups
 to process quickly large amounts of information and varied opinions. This is achieved
through opinion polling tools (e.g., voting, criteria-based rating) that permit individual
group members to evaluate various options and then quickly aggregate their opinions
and present them to the group.
GSS features also enable groups to broaden their perspective by facilitating access
to external information. Groups
 using GSS receive larger quantities of information (Losee, 1993). Group members'
freedom to process, interpret, and share this information with other group members
can help in analyzing the group's problems. Anonymity and extended information processing
enabled by GSS result in the generation and examination of a larger number of alternatives
(Nunamaker, Applegate, and Konsynski, 1988; Vogel and Nunamaker, 1988). An electronic
meeting environment fosters access to information outside the decision room (Huber,
1990). With the external access feature, group members are able to access external
databases, thereby circumventing group insulation. Finally, extended information
processing can help decision-makers integrate the analysis. Visual displays and statistical
analysis provided with GSS allow opinions to be tabulated and assimilated.
RESEARCH MODEL
Irrespective of antecedents conditions, GSS prevent the development of groupthink
symptoms by reducing concurrence-seeking. This section examines the mediating effect
of GSS and the specific GSS features that can prevent/reduce concurrence-seeking.
The theoretical framework is summarized in the research model presented in Figure
2. (Figure 2 omitted)
When a group possesses groupthink antecedents, it may not be possible, or even desirable,
to change the group's structure. However, it is possible to prevent the development
of groupthink by ensuring that each specific group decision is made under conditions
of vigilance (Janis, 1982). This implies that the group examines a wide range of
alternatives, carefully evaluates and reevaluates these alternatives within the context
of the group's objectives, searches for relevant information, accurately processes
all information, and undertakes detailed implementation and contingency planning.
GSS can promote vigilance without necessarily detracting from the social structure
of the group. Table 1 summarizes mechanisms through which concurrence-seeking within
GSS
groups may be reduced. (Table 1 omitted)
HYPOTHESES
Based on the research model presented in Figure 2 and the relationships described
in Table 1, hypothesized relationships are articulated in Table 2. (Table 2 omitted)
Four outcome measures were chosen to estimate the occurrence of groupthink among
study
groups
. These were: 1) number of alternatives considered; 2) time spent discussing alternatives;
3) access to external information; and 4) decision quality. Number of alternatives
considered is a direct operationalization of the incomplete survey of alternatives
and accessing of external information is an operationalization of the quality of
information search. Amount of time spent discussing alternatives is a surrogate measure
of what Janis refers to as failure to examine risks of preferred choice and failure
to reappraise initially rejected alternatives. Decision quality is an estimate of
the overall success of the group's efforts. While groupthink does not necessarily
result in poor decision, it increases the probability of a poor decision. The absence
of negative concurrence-seeking and groupthink symptoms should, therefore, tend to
improve the quality of decision outcomes among
groups using GSS.
Hypothesized effects are summarized in Table 2. The directions of these hypothesized
relationships indicate that GSS are expected to have a positive impact on the outcomes
of decision-making meetings. In sum, GSS are predicted to increase the number of
alternatives considered, increase the amount of time spent discussing these alternatives,
increase the amount of external information accessed, and result in better quality
decisions.
PROCEDURES, MANIPULATION, CONTROLS
The study consisted of thirty-three 5- and 6-member groups. These groups
 were drawn from undergraduate introduction to information systems classes at a southeastern
university. Prior to the study, participants received training in structured problem
solving and an introduction to the technology.
Groups then met for two sessions to solve specified problems. These meetings were
spaced a week apart.
During one meeting groups used a Group Support System; the other session was a traditional
face-to-face meeting. During each meeting,
groups solved a different problem. These tasks, conditions, and controls are described
below.
Treatment Variables
Meeting Support. During GSS meetings, a technology known as VisionQuest was used.
VisionQuest is a software product that supports
groups involved in decision-making and planning.
The control condition involved the use of traditional (non-electronic) meeting techniques.
During this session, groups
 used paper and pencil techniques and followed an agenda similar to the agenda in
the GSS condition. The purpose of this agenda was to control for effects other than
meeting
support.
Task Type. Two task types were used: intellective and cognitive-conflict. A problem
was developed to match each of these two task types. The first was an intellective
problem with a deterministic answer--the Vendor Selection Problem. This problem requires
groups
 to choose one of three software vendors based on specific criteria.
The second problem was a cognitive-conflict task requiring groups
 to make an assessment of a moral question and propose a solution--the Ethical Dilemma
Problem. This task is a modification of a problem introduced by Weiss (1990) and
required
groups
 to analyze the problem of faulty software and propose legislation that might remedy
the situation.
The variable was a repeated measure. Order effects were controlled by rotating the
order in which the two tasks were presented to the
groups.
Dependent Variables
Time Spent Discussing Alternatives, An observer noted the time at which the first
comment was made as well as the time of the end of discussion as signified by the
completed writeup of the decision.
Access to External Information. At the start of the meeting the experimenter informed
the groups
 that additional information would assist them in making a decision was available.
The experimenter provided the
groups
 with a list of topics available and described how they could access this information.
For the GSS users, VisionQuest has a feature which allows its users to access additional
information. Additional information relevant to each decision was accessible from
the decision agenda in the GSS situation. A program counted each access of the additional
information and the time during the decision-making process at which the information
was requested.
The same additional information was available in the traditional decision-making
groups
 via a confederate's notebook. Group members were allowed to check out information
sheets contained in the notebook during the course of the meeting. The confederate
logged each time a request for the additional notebook information was made.
Decision Quality. Groups
 were required to provide a written report of their decisions. Each decision was
evaluated by two raters on a 7-point scale (a "7" representing a good decision, a
"1" a poor decision). The raters then met to discuss the ratings and reconcile major
differences. The inter-rater reliability was 0.6697 for the intellective and 0.7226
for the judgmental task. While these reliabilities were both significant at xx =
0.0001, the explained variance was only 45% on the intellective task and 52% on the
judgmental task. Therefore, the results on this dimension need to be interpreted
with caution. The two ratings on each task were summed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 179 subjects, 74 females, 101 males, and 4 undeclared participated in
the study. The average age of the participants was 23.82 years. Participants were
either juniors or seniors and represented 9 different majors from the college of
business. Treatment effects and the interaction between the task and treatment were
analyzed using analysis of variance. The results of univariate analyses of variance
for each of the dependent variables follow. A family-wise significance level of 0.05
was adopted, resulting in a significance level of 0.0125 after correcting for the
number of individual hypothesis tests run (Stevens, 1986).
GSS use resulted in considering significantly more alternatives and accessing a greater
amount of external information. However, groups
 using GSS spent less time discussing the alternatives. While the main effect of
GSS use on decision quality was insignificant, there was a significant interaction
with task type. These results are presented and discussed below.
Number of Alternatives Considered
There is a significant treatment effect on the number of alternatives considered
(F=26.88; p=0.0001). The difference is in the predicted direction. The GSS
groups considered an average of 8.15 alternatives while the traditional groups
 only generated an average of 5.35 alternatives. The interaction between task and
treatment effects is highly significant (F=23.59; p=0.0001).
The intellective task presented the groups with three choices. Forty-two percent
(i.e., 14 of 33) of the groups
 limited their analysis to only two of the three alternatives, generating slight
variance for this task.
On the judgmental task, groups
 were free to generate an unlimited number of alternatives. Thus, the number of alternatives
generated and the variance on this task is much greater. On the average,
groups
 generated more alternatives on the judgmental task when supported by GSS (xxx=13.71;
xxx=8.87; t=23.18; p=0.0001).
Time Spent Discussing Alternatives
The treatment difference is significant (F=34.71; p=0.0001). The GSS groups talked
significantly less (xxx=50.58) than did the manual groups
 (xxx=61.46). The interaction between treatment and task effects approaches significance
for time spent discussing alternatives (F=2.85; p=0.0928). The GSS
groups may be more efficient in their decision-making or they may inadequately discuss
the alternatives.
Access to External Information
Groups
 are significantly different in their access of external information (xxx=34.28;
xxx=19.02; F=174.98; p=0.0001). The interaction between treatment and task effects
is not significant for external access (F=0.07; p=0.7856).
Decision Quality
Overall, groups
 do not appear to make better quality decisions when they are supported by GSS than
when they use traditional approaches (xxx=3.95, xxx=3.94; F=0.01; p=0.9053). However,
the interaction between treatment and task effects on decision quality is significant
(F=23.62; p=0.0001). The traditional
groups make significantly higher quality decisions on the intellective tasks than
do the GSS groups
 (xxx=4.83; xxx=4.22; t=13.16; p=0.0004). On the other hand, on judgmental tasks,
the GSS groups
 make significantly higher quality decisions than do the traditional
groups (xxx= 3.69; xxx=3.07; t=10.72; p=0.0013).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study, summarized in Table 3, support two of the four hypothesized
relationships. (Table 3 omitted) That is, GSS groups
 consider more alternatives and access external information more often than do more
traditional face-to-face groups. The GSS groups
 spend significantly less time discussing the problem and its solution. Thus, these
results were in the direction opposite from the hypothesis. The results also indicate
that GSS can sometimes, but not always, improve decision quality. These results are
examined in the following sections. Where significant interactions exist, interactions
are graphically displayed and t-test results are provided
Number of Alternatives Considered
An established advantage of GSS use has been the larger number of alternatives generated
or the depth of analysis in an electronic environment (Nunamaker et al., 1988; Vogel
and Nunamaker, 1988). In those studies, the type of decision did not affect the positive
relationship between GSS and the number of alternatives. This study supports their
findings. The difference is especially clear on the judgmental task where
groups generated their own alternatives. However, it also appears true for the intellective
task, indicating that GSS
groups were less likely to reject prematurely any of the three alternatives provided.
The interactions are displayed in Figure 3.
Time Spent Discussing Alternatives
Policy-makers find themselves faced with an increasing number of decisions and limited
time in which to make them. A tool such as GSS that can streamline the decision-making
process can prove extremely helpful. GSS appear to reduce the amount of decision
time irrespective of the nature of the problem being considered. However, a negative
effect of the reduced time spent on the problem may be that the group is less thorough
in the analysis of the problem and its alternatives.
Use of External Information
Moorhead and Montanari (1986) found that insular groups
 felt more vulnerable and were, therefore, more likely to refer to external experts.
Thus easy access to external information is crucial for such
groups. The results of this study clearly indicate that groups
 access external information more frequently when it is available electronically
than when they have to ask another individual for such information on both intellective
and judgmental tasks. While present GSS users do not typically use the electronic
medium to access external information, this important and useful GSS feature enables
more enlightened decision-making.
Decision Quality
Prior GSS researchers have demonstrated improvements in decision quality with GSS
use (Sharda et al., 1988; Gallupe, DeSanctis, and Dickson, 1988) but the results
of this study provide mixed
support
 for prior work. Figure 4 indicates that GSS use impeded decision quality on the
intellective task. (Figure 4 omitted) However, GSS use contributed to improved decision
quality on judgmental tasks. These tasks are susceptible to groupthink (Whyte, 1989).
Policy-makers are likely to be faced with judgmental tasks requiring the processing
of opinions as well as information, indicating that GSS can effectively
support such groups
 involved in such complex decision-making tasks and preventing the negative impacts
of groupthink.
GSS as an Organization Development Intervention
These findings suggest that GSS, with their focus on reducing concurrence-seeking
behavior, may be an effective means of helping policy-makers deal with defective
decision situations. Taras (1991) suggests that OD interveners must combine interpersonal
with structural and procedural changes to deal with crises of agreement such as the
Abilene paradox and groupthink. In the Abilene paradox, group members withheld their
private feelings and allowed other group members to believe that decisions were unanimously
supported. Unlike other OD activities, GSS can address both of these crises of agreement.
The Abilene paradox, with its focus on individuals in group decision-making situations,
can benefit from GSS tools at the interpersonal level by stressing disclosure, openness,
and presenting privately-held views.
For groupthink, GSS can focus on group structures and processes. This study represents
an initial step in understanding how to use GSS to inhibit groupthink. The promising
results warrant further study of the application of GSS as an OD prevention strategy.
REFERENCES
Bostrom, R.P. and R.G. Anson (1988). "A Case for Collaborative Work Support
 Systems in a Meeting Environment." Unpublished working paper, Department of Management,
University of Georgia.
Bui, T., T.R. Sivasankaran, Y. Fijol, and M.A. Woodbuly (1987). "Identifying Organizational
Opportunities for GDSS Use: Some Experimental Evidence." DSS-87:68-75.
Callaway, M.R. and J.K. Esser (1984). "Groupthink: Effects of Cohesiveness and Problem-Solving
Procedures on Group Decision Making." SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY 12(2):157-164.
Chidambaram., L, R.P. Bostrom, and B.E. Wynne (1990-91). "A Longitudinal Study of
the Impact of Group Decision Support
 Systems on Group Development." JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 7(3):7-25.
Flowers, M.L. (1977). "A Laboratory Test of Some Implications of Janis' Groupthink
Hypothesis." JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 35(12):178-185.
Fodor, E.M. and T. Smith (1982). "The Power Motive as an Influence on Group Decision
Making." JOURNAL OP PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 42(1):178-185.
Gallupe, R.B., G, DeSanctis, and G. Dickson (1988). "Computer-based Support
 for Group Problem Finding: An Experimental Investigation." MIS QUARTERLY 12(2):277-296.
George, A.L. (1980). PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONMAKING FOR FOREIGN POLICY: THE EFFECTIVE
USE OF INFORMATION AND ADVICE. Boulder, CO: Westview.
George, J.F., G.B. Northcraft, and J.P. Nunamaker (1987). "Implications of Group
Decision Support
 System Use for Management: Report of a Pilot Study." Unpublished working paper,
College of Business, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Golembiewski, R.T. (1990). IRONIES IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Huber, G.P. (1940). "A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Information Technologies
on Organizational Design, Intelligence, and Decision Making." ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT
REVIEW 15(1):47-71.
Janis, I.L. (1982). GROUPTHINK: PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES ON POLICY DECISIONS AND FIASCOES,"
2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
-- (1989). CRUCIAL DECISIONS: LEADERSHIP IN POLICYMAKING AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT. New
York: Free Press.
Jessup, L.M., T. Connolly, and J. Galegher (1990). "The Effects of Anonymity on GDSS
Group Process with an Idea-Generating Task." MIS QUARTERLY 14(3):313-321.
Leana, C.R (1985). "A Partial Test of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of Group Cohesiveness
and Leader Behavior on Defective Decision Making." JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 11(1):5-17.
Losee, S. (1993). "Groupware Goes Boom." FORTUNE (December 27):99-106.
McCauley C. (1989). "The Nature of Social Influence in Groupthink: Compliance and
Internalization." JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 57(2):250-260.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). GROUPS: INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Miranda, S.M. (19xx). "Avoidance of Groupthink: Meeting Management Using Group Support
 Systems." SMALL GROUP RESEARCH 25(1):105-136.
Moorhead, G. and J.R. Montanari (1986). "An Empirical Investigation of the Groupthink
Phenomenon." HUMAN RELATIONS 39(5):399-410.
Nunamaker, J.F., L.M. Applegate, and B.R. Konsynski (1988). "Computer-aided Deliberation:
Model Management and Group Decision Support
." JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH 36(6):826-848.
Nunamaker, J.F., A.R. Dennis, J.S. Valacich, D.R. Vogel, and J.F. George (1991).
"Electronic Meeting Systems to Support
 Group Work." COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 34(1):40-61.
Pinsonneault, A. and K.L. Kraemer (1989). "The Impact of Technological Support on
Groups
: An Assessment of the Empirical Research." DECISION
SUPPORT SYSTEMS 5:197-216.
Poole, M.S. and G. DeSanctis (1989). "Use of Group Decision Support Systems as an
Appropriation Process." IEEE:149-157.
Sharda, R., S.H. Barr, and J.C. McDonnell (1988). "Decision Support
 System Effectiveness: A Review and an Empirical Test." MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 34:139-159.
Steeb, R. and S.C. Johnson (1981). "A Computer-based Interactive System for Group
Decision-Making." IEEE TRANSACTIONS 11:544-552.
Stevens, J. (1986). APPLIED MULTIVARIATE STATISTICS FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Taras, D.G. (1991). "Breaking the Silence: Differentiating Crises of Agreements."
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY 14 (Winter):401-418.
Tetlock, P.E. (1979). "Identifying Victims of Groupthink from Public Statements of
Decision Makers." JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 37:1314-1324.
Vogel, D. and J.F. Nunamaker (1988). "Group Decision Support
 System Impact: Multi-Methodological Exploration." INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT 18(1):15-28.
von Bergen, C.W. and R.J. Kirk (1978). "Groupthink: When Too Many Heads Spoil the
Decision." MANAGEMENT REVIEW 12:44-49.
Weiss, E.A. (1990). "Self-Assessment Procedures XXXII." COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
33:110-132.
Whyte, G. (1989). "Groupthink Reconsidered." ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 14(1):40-56.
Zigurs, I., M.S. Poole, and G.L. DeSanctis (1988). "A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated
Group Decision Making." MIS QUARTERLY 12(4):625-644.
-1-
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication Information:
Article Title: Group Support Systems: an Organization Development Intervention to
Combat Groupthink. Contributors: Shaila M. Miranda - author, Carol Saunders - author.
Journal Title: Public Administration Quarterly. Volume: 19. Issue: 2. Publication
Year: 1995. Page Number: 193+. © 1995 Southern Public Administration Education Foundation.
Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Next Page

Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63 at frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20120712/55f08b05/attachment-0001.html>