CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONAlmost every organization will incur a le.docx

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Almost every organization will incur a level of change over that
organizations’ lifetime. Whether an organization has been in
existence for generations due to proper adaptation or an
organization has failed due to an unwillingness to budge,
change has and will be present. Most change efforts exert heavy
human and economic tolls (Beer & Nohria, 2000, p. 137). In
higher education, faculty hold high influence on change efforts
and faculty’s willingness to embrace change could set the pace
for the change effort.
Introduction to the Problem
Leaders in higher education are generally considered
responsible for setting institutional direction and ensuring
institutional success. Advancing in technology have required
major and consistent change in all aspects of the higher
education system. While technological advances effect the
institution as a whole, the current research will inquire on
whether or not additional effort should be focused on the
institutions’ faculty. Technology is impacting instruction with
online, hybrid, and distance learning options (Andrade, 2011, p.
218). Despite an ever-changing classroom environment, many
pedagogies and tools used in university classrooms have
remained unchanged (Sutton & DeSantis, 2017, p 223).
The need for further research on leading technological change
within faculty was not only fueled by academic concern but
economic concern. Siegel, Acharya, and Sivo (2017) wrote that
new technologies that are not fully adopted “increase the overall
operational and logistical costs that may ultimately lead to
discontinuation of the new technology, thereby depriving
faculty, students, and the institution of its benefits” (p. 65).
Statement of the Problem
Beer and Nohria (2000) warned of the “proliferation of
recommendations” that often led to the muddling of change
attempts within organizations (p. 137). Higher education tends

to have faculty split based on the ability of some members to
progress as other members of faculty are lefts behind.
A fostering of faculty’s acceptance of online delivery methods
was found critical for institutions that consider online learning
to be a key part of the institutions’ strategic plans and to attract
increased enrollment (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018, p. 139). Ramirez
and Gillig found that to facilitate faculty acceptance of online
delivery strategies, “college administrators need to understand
how both students and faculty perceive online learning and the
factors that shape their perceptions about the quality of online
teaching and learning” (p. 139).
Purpose of the Study
The objective of the current study was to investigate literature
on change efforts in higher education fueled by faculty needs to
adopt and implement new pedagogical technologies. Attention
will be given to best practices of technological implementation
by faculty and the inspiration of said faculty to implement.
Research Questions
The current study aims to find enough evidence to assure that
additional change effort should be focused specifically on
faculty’s use of technology in the classroom. Studies on
organizational change and technology will be investigated to
and the current research question.
Research Question Should additional and consistent effort be
focused on faculty adoption of pedagogical technology?
Significance of the Study
The current study is significant in that the study aims to provide
evidence through literature to the importance of additional
focus on faculty and technology during institutional change
efforts. The current study should add to the body of literature
on the subjects of change efforts within higher education.
Assumptions and Limitations
The current study may prove limited in that new knowledge
gained may not be implemented to receive quantitative data to
add to the current body of knowledge. The current study
assumes focus on faculty during higher education change efforts

was to the extent that additional efforts would be required.
Nature of the Study
The current study will be exploratory in nature. The majority of
information provided has been retrieved from current literature
on change efforts within higher education, technological
advances in teaching, and faculty willingness to support change
effort.
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The following chapter will intently review literature on
enacting change efforts in higher education. Specific attention
will be given to literature on faculty and technology driven
change efforts.
Introduction
With both faculty inability and unwillingness to use new
technology recognized as the problem, the following literature
review will provide material on thoughtful implementation of
technology and motivating strategy. Challenges will be
presented followed by the role of administrators as leaders in
the higher education context.
Kotter (2012) understood that regardless of level or locations,
culture was important because culture could powerfully
influence human behavior, could be difficult to change, and
because culture’s near invisibility makes it hard to address
directly (p. 157). Kotter would add that “generally, shared
values, which are less apparent but more deeply ingrained in the
culture, are more difficult to change than norms of behavior” (p.
157). As technology becomes the culture of the institution,
technology should not be neglected in the classroom.
Challenges

Many factors have been found to prevent or hinder faculty from
adapting to technological advances in higher education. Change
agents have always faced resistance, no matter how needed a
change effort may be, and no matter how close the agents are to
the process and the people that the agents are dealing with;
“resistance can come from anywhere, even the same level as the
agents themselves” (Jick & Peiperl, 2003, p. 362).
Software presents a myriad of challenges such as difficult
interfaces, slow response time, or other repairable issues that
the university administration and IT could address (Burnett,
Shemroske, & Khayum, 2014, p. 66). Burnet et al. recognized
an additional challenge in the form of responsibilities
associated with the software (p. 66). Faculty need to view the IT
department differently and perceptions of organizational
support can change with proper positive motivators, such as
rewards for early adopters and praise for using the system (p.
66).
Change Blindness
Sutton and DeSantis (2017) wrote on the concept of change
blindness in that change blindness describes a humans’ tendency
to “ignore alterations in the environment” (p. 223). The authors’
outline an extensive list of changes in higher education that
have led to the evolution of classroom environments including
the emergence of novel technologies, expectations from
students, and learning assessments (p. 223).
A sense of urgency such as the external threats of accreditation
processes and requirements were found often used to get faculty
members to adopt desired behavior and look past change
blindness (Andrade, 2011, p. 220). Andrade would continue in
that shared leadership and co-creation of vision were desirable,
“particularly in higher education contexts” (2011, p. 218).
Social Media
Throughout the past decade, social media has been a growing
influence in higher education (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018, p. 137).

Among the many facets of technological influence on higher
education pedagogy, social media has begun to insert itself as
possibly playing a role in higher education. Increased use of
online pedagogy in higher education has revealed a need to
analyze factors contributing to student engagement in online
courses.
Burnett, Shemroske, and Khayum (2014) echo the sentiment that
the relatively recent, explosive growth of social networking
tools like Facebook and Twitter “provide ample evidence of the
reach of computing technology beyond the domain of
application developer” (p. 52). Ramirez and Gillig (2018) found
from their study a confirmation that “positive influence of
previous online course experience” benefited and motivated
students and faculty toward the use of computer technology for
educational purposes (p. 148). The authors’ results also
revealed that “close to the majority of students and faculty
wanted to learn more about Twitter and more than the majority
were not afraid of Twitter for educational purposes” (p. 148).
Administration
The role of a Dean or other administrative agent is critical in
aligning the goals of the university with participation among
collaborators. The ideas and motivational strategies presented in
the work of Burnett, Shemroske, and Khayum (2014) pointed to
the need for implementation from a team. Further, where
intrinsic motivations are not sufficient, a system using a
motivational approach was found to be need to provide
sufficient direction “which makes clear the expectations of
participation amongst faculty members such that other benefits
of collaborative technologies may be enough to carry tasks to
completion” (Burnett, Shemroske, & Khayum, 2014, p. 56). The
authors found a significant relationship between organizational
support, motivation, and perceived usefulness, because the
faculty received e-learning organizational support from the dean
to adopt Blackboard in the form of training and other support.
(Burnett, Shemroske, & Khayum, 2014, p. 66)
Among many important technology trends in higher education,

Sutton and DeSantis (2017) point to a wave of private
investment in classroom technology and rising interest in
lowering education costs as catalysts:
These twin revolutions in education technology are rapidly
changing expectations of what teaching and learning should be
like in all classrooms, including those of higher education.
While it might be too early to sound the death knell of the
chalkboard, the passive lecture or the Scantron machine, it is
hard to imagine these tools and techniques playing a significant
role in college and university classrooms for much longer.
(Sutton & DeSantis, 2017, p. 224)
Administrations role in enacting change is approached with an
understanding that if the root of a problem was not addressed,
the entire university could consequently suffer.
Summary
Literature found that faculty were more willing than
previously assumed to adopt new technology. Literature also
found that while faculty showed a willingness, faculty would
need additional support and motivation to continue use of
technology. Administration were found to have a key role the
developed of vision and implementation of the technological
progress in the classroom.
CHAPTER 3. CONCLUSIONS
The problem recognized for the current study was the lack of
faculty willingness to support higher education change efforts
through the adoption of new technologies for use in classroom
instruction. The current study sought to provide evidence for
the need focus effort on faculty during the change process
Summary of Study
The current study found through literature investigation
that while faculty tend to feel more comfortable with new
technology than assumed, faculty will need continual and at
times long-length motivation to remain consistent towards

adoption of the technology. The current study discovered that
administration should make additional effort to ensuring faculty
adoption of new technology while simultaneously ensuring that
other staff within higher education are not neglected. Sutton and
DeSantis (2017) posited that with thoughtful support “grounded
in established technology theory, many higher education faculty
can take advantages of the capabilities of recently emerged
technologies” (p. 227).
Research Questions
The current study believed that evidence through literature
could assure that additional change effort should be focused
specifically on faculty’s use of technology in the classroom.
Studies on organizational change and technology were
investigated to answer the current research question.
Research Question Should additional and consistent effort be
focused on faculty adoption of pedagogical technology?
Implications and Further Study
Literature revealed that faculty agreed that the use of
technology in the classroom supported learning, but as Loague,
Caldwell, and Balam (2018) would posit, greater support for
integrating technology into instruction is needed (p. 9).
Attention should be given in further study on the gains and
losses of growing technical support offices on higher education
campuses.

REFERENCES
Andrade, M. (2011). Managing change-engaging faculty in
assessment opportunities. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4),
217-233.
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2009). Cracking the code of change.
The Principles and Practice of Change.
Burnett, P., Shemroske, K., & Khayum, M. (2014). Disrupting
faculty service: Using technology to increase academic service
productivity. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice
& Research, 4(2), 48-58.
Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2003). Managing change: Cases and
concepts. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Loague, A., Caldwell, N., & Balam, E. (2018). Professors’
attitudes and perceptions about technology use in the classroom.
Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 1-11.
Ramirez, D. M., & Gillig, S. (2018). Computer technology and
Twitter for online learning and student engagement. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research (1947-2900), 10(1/2), 137-153.
Siegel, D., Acharya, P., & Sivo, S. (2017). Extending the
technology acceptance model to improve usage & decrease
resistance toward a new technology by faculty in higher
education. Journal of Technology Studes, 43(2), 58-69.
Sutton, K. K., & DeSantis, J. (2017). Beyond change blindness:
Embracing the technology revolution in higher education.
Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 54(3), 223-
228.
Running head: GROUPTHINK IN CORPORATE AMERICA
1
GROUPTHINK IN CORPORATE AMERICA

Groupthink in Corporate America
Name
Institution
Groupthink in Corporate America
One of the major problems in corporate decision making is the
ability to coalesce the dissenting opinions of the members of the
boards. In some cases, the pressure from the dissenting forces
results in the delay of crucial decision-making endeavors. As a
result, some organizations have opted to create a culture of
ideological harmony. Roland Bénabou (2012) believes that due
to the innate desire for most organizations to conform to all
members of the board and to bring harmony within the
organization, the culture of groupthink is created. Groupthink is

a psychological phenomenon, common in the corporate world,
which occurs when the organization’s desire for conformity,
consensus, and harmony overrides the need to present the
critiques and alternative positions in the decisions making
process (Bénabou, 2012). As a result, board members of an
organization make decisions bereft of critical evaluation of
possible alternatives. As a result of the groupthink culture, such
organizations suppress the dissenting opinion from within as
well as shielding themselves from the outside influence.
According to Cass Sunstein and Reid Hastie (2015), groupthink
suppresses creativity in an organization thus having a negative
impact on the profitability of the company. The culture of
groupthink has been evident in various organizations within the
United States. It is, therefore, imperative that a critical
examination of this phenomenon be undertaken, using the
American case studies, to enlighten the Americans on the
repercussion and the possible prevention and solution of the
problem of groupthink. Considering the American cases of the
impact of groupthink on a corporate environment, it is
imperative that every American, especially those with interest
in entrepreneurship, appreciate the effect of this phenomenon
thus find a way of getting out of its yoke.
The phenomenon of groupthink traces its history back in 1952
when William H. Whyte Jr. first used the word in a similar
context. Whyte derived the term from George Orwell's novel,
Nineteen Eighty-Four. Orwell, however, did not use the idea of
groupthink to represent an actual occurrence but representation
of a factious totalitarian government. In his essay in Fortune
Magazine, Whyte argued that the instinctive conformity of
mankind is the major cause of the failure of corporate
organizations (Whyte, 1952). This idea remained silent for
almost two decades when Irving Janis finally revived it in 1972.
Janis believed that organizations desperately seek for consensus
even if it detrimental (Janis, 2015). He used the cases of “Bay
of Pigs” disaster and the Pearl Harbor bombing by the Japanese
to illustrate the disaster of groupthink. All the two military

attacks ended up in failure because the policymakers were
driven by the need for consensus; not critical evaluation of the
events and incorporation of divergent opinion to come up with a
more rigorously thought out decisions (Leung, 2014). Janis was
a psychologist hence his focus was on the impact of groupthink
on government policymaking. His ideas have been adopted in
the corporate world and are parts of the literature on corporate
communication. Several American corporate organizations have
fallen into the wrath of corporate groupthink hence the idea
should be considered with the importance it carries.
In corporate America, groupthink is caused by three major
antecedent conditions. These are the conditions “that produce,
elicit, or facilitate the occurrence of the syndrome” (Hassan,
2013). According to Janis (2015), these conditions include high
affinity to group cohesiveness, the existence of structural faults,
and the existence of a negative situational context. Out of the
three conditions, the most prominent causal factor is the group
cohesiveness. According to Chen, Tsai, and Shu (2009), the
cohesiveness in an organization makes the members create a
friendly relationship among them by avoiding counterarguments
and criticism of a decision unanimously made by the members.
In other words, organizations with the culture of groupthink
appreciate the status quo and vilify any attempt to for diverse
thinking. As a result, groupthink replaces creativity and critical
thinking within an organization (Hassan, 2013). The general
position of groupthink is that it has a negative impact on the
productivity of an organization. It eliminates critical thinking
and deters creativity thus hampering the possible competitive
advantages that the organization can gain from coming up with
new ideas. However, Pratkanis and Turner (2013) believe that
there is still hope for the organizations that have adopted the
groupthink culture. They provided three interventional
approaches that can be used effectively to bring an organization
out of the wrath of groupthink.
There are salient symptoms of groupthink in an organization.
The first type of groupthink symptom is the “overestimation of

the group which includes the illusion of invulnerability and the
belief in the group‘s inherent morality” (Rose, 2011). For
example, in the United States before the economic crisis of
2008, the entire banking industry was plunged into the abyss of
groupthink (Barberis, 2013). Due to the real estate boom and
the exponential growth in the industry, the decision makers
thought that they had it all right. Barberis (2013) believes that
the entire industry was deluded that they were invulnerable
hence they did not see the crisis coming. With the rising in the
house prices, decision-makers in the banking industry believed
that the mortgage sector will continue booming even if there
were pieces of evidence that this was not true. Groupthink also
creates the tendency of closed-mindedness where the decision
makers develop the sense of collective rationalization and
develop negative stereotypes towards the members of the out-
group who try to contradict their ideology (Rose, 2011). Due to
groupthink, the organization is pressured towards uniformity in
thoughts and actions.
In the United States, the problem of groupthink has affected
both the government and the corporate world. Between the years
2000 and 2003 alone, more than 149,000 companies in America
filed for bankruptcy protection (Rabe, 2009). It is not clear
which of these companies went down due to collective
rationalization, biased information-gathering, or the close-
mindedness of groupthinkers. One thing which is known for
sure is that major companies such as Enron collapsed in 2001.
For years, the company reported a fraudulent financial report.
The board was aware of these fraudulent acts but made no
attempt to correct them. To them, this was a way of selling
Enron’s reputation to the public. As a result of the impressive
financial report, the Enron shares increased thus increasing the
shareholders’ dividends and earnings. Anybody within the
management who tried to criticize this fraudulent approach was
shut down. Those who tried to defy the groupthink such as
Sherron Watkins were vilified by the board members and shut
down (Cavaiola, 2015). Eventually, Watkins blew the whistle

and the public was made aware of the financial difficulties the
company was facing. Through groupthink, Enron hoarded the
problem for so long that when the problem was revealed to the
public, it was too late. The company eventually collapsed.
Another major case of groupthink backfire is the case of the
American auto industry. This does not focus on one
organization or company but on the entire industry. For a long
time, the industry has prided itself with enormous profits,
productivity, and growth. As a result, the company cultivated a
culture that they are the best automakers in the entire world.
They even believed that they knew the kind of vehicles the
Americans want and anyone who thought otherwise was
disregarded (DeMers, 2018). With the rising financial and
environmental concerns, the appeal foe small energy-saving car
increased. However, the American auto industry insisted on
manufacturing the huge fuel guzzler SUVs that were no longer
appealing. Foreign companies such as Honda, Toyota, Nissan,
and Hyundai responded to the new appeal and started
manufacturing energy-efficient cars. As a result, the American
population started importing cars. American Auto industry faced
the biggest financial challenge when President Obama signed
the Cash for Clunkers extension into law in 2009. This
legislation provided the Americans with the freedom to import
energy efficient car from foreign manufacturers (Li, Linn, &
Spiller, 2013). The American auto industry started to experience
stiff competition from foreign manufacturers. The competition
resulted in a negative impact on the productivity and
profitability of the industry.
Americans have experienced the repercussions of groupthink.
There are several companies that have collapsed due to this
culture of organizational conformity. Enron and the American
auto industry are just a few examples. Other companies such as
Everest Events and Swissair have also faced a major corporate
problem because of this culture. Currently, there are various
organizations in America which are trapped in the yoke of
groupthink. Dominic J. Packer (2009) argues that the only way

for corporate America to get out of groupthink is when strongly
identified members of an organization offer dissenting opinion
and criticism to popular opinions. If organizations can always
give room for dissenting opinions, instances such as the Space
Shuttle Columbia disaster could be avoided. As much as
groupthink provides a sense of togetherness and conformity in
an organization, it can culminate to can result in a financial,
legal, or physical disaster that the company can get out of.
Groupthink kills creativity and creates a competitive
disadvantage to a corporate organization. The American
corporate environment should, therefore, give room for
dissenting opinions and criticism to encourage critical thinking
and innovation within organizations.
References
Barberis, N. (2013). Psychology and the Financial Crisis of
2007-2008. Financial innovation: too much or too little, 15-28.
Bénabou, R. (2012). Groupthink: Collective delusions in
organizations and markets. Review of Economic Studies, 80(2),
429-462.
Cavaiola, A. (2015). Lessons to be Learned from the Enron
Scandal. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/impossible-
please/201505/lessons-be-learned-the-enron-scandal
Chen, C. K., Tsai, C. H., & Shu, K. C. (2009). An exploratory
study for groupthink research to enhance group decision
quality. Journal of Quality, 16(2), 137-152.
DeMers, J. (2018). How 'Groupthink' Can Cost Your Business

(and 3 Corporate Examples). Retrieved March 14, 2019, from
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311864
Hassan, G. (2013). Groupthink principles and fundamentals in
organizations. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary
research in business, 5(8), 225-240.
Janis, I. L. (2015). Groupthink: The desperate drive for
consensus at any cost. Classics of organization theory, 161-168.
Leung, C. L. (2014). Exploring the effectiveness of online role
play simulations to reduce groupthink in crisis management
training. HKU Theses Online (HKUTO).
Li, S., Linn, J., & Spiller, E. (2013). Evaluating “Cash-for-
Clunkers”: Program effects on auto sales and the
environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and
management, 65(2), 175-193.
Packer, D. J. (2009). Avoiding groupthink: Whereas weakly
identified members remain silent, strongly identified members
dissent about collective problems. Psychological Science, 20(5),
546-548.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Turner, M. E. (2013). Methods for
counteracting groupthink risk: A critical appraisal. International
Journal of Risk and Contingency Management (IJRCM), 2(4),
18-38.
Rabe, C. B. (2009). No One Is Immune from
Groupthink. American Management Association. Retrieved
March 14, 2019, from
https://www.amanet.org/training/articles/no-one-is-immune-
from-groupthink.aspx.
Rose, J. D. (2011). Diverse perspectives on the groupthink
theory–a literary review. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1),
37-57.
Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond
groupthink to make groups smarter. Harvard Business Press.
Whyte, W. H., Jnr. (1952). Groupthink, (Fortune
1952). Fortune. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from
http://fortune.com/2012/07/22/groupthink-fortune-1952/

Running head: GROUPTHINK
GROUPTHINK
Essay: Groupthink in Corporate America
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Groupthink is one of the major problems that prevent
timely and effective decision-making in the American business
environment. In my effort to explore this problem, I
conceptualized a research topic for this study as Groupthink in
Corporate America. The study was driven by the desire to
understand the state of paralysis that sweeps over organizational
boardrooms or business units. These problems generate adverse
impacts on an organization, especially in situations in which a
company is in a major crisis and needs timely intervention. For
example, an organization that is facing processes such as
possible litigations, restructurings, and crises may be crippled
by the groupthink bottlenecks in corporate decision-making
(Silver, 2013, p. 78). Thus, groupthink is one of the challenges
that deter generation of independent ideas, making the spread of

knowledge and innovation harder (DeMers, 2018, p. 1).
Groupthink is a major threat to an organization’s sustainability
ate very business level. This problem is partly magnified by the
communication progression that characterized the 21st century.
There are various reasons why there further research is
needed in the area of groupthink in American organizations.
First, the study seeks to explore the main aspects of groupthink
syndromes that affect most American companies. The core
symptoms of groupthink can be categorized into three major
elements: overestimations of the power of morality of the
group, closed-mindedness, as well as pressures towards
uniformity. The study will examine the extent to which these
three categories of groupthink are dominant in the American
corporate society. These research objectives are founded on the
idea that groups that have fallen prey to these syndromes tend to
believe that it is better, and more powerful to have
unquestioning faith in its own moral authorities (Chen, Tsai &
Shu, 2009, p. 138). This study will also be efficacious in
exploring warnings from external members and how firms tend
to underestimate the competence and strengths of relevant
outgroups with which they are competing. There exists a paucity
of knowledge associated with within-group consensus in
groupthink literature (Hassan, 2013, p. 226). Therefore, the
study will examine how people who differ with the dominant
group’s position fail to voice their concern. Of specific interest
in this area will include exploration of the ways in which groups
often pile pressure on members ho deviate from the group’s
position.
The research will be conducted in the United States. To
this effect, employees and company leaders of three major
multinational companies will be selected for data gathering. The
participants will be selected through a process of stratified
random sampling in order to increase representativeness of the
sample. The reason for selecting this sampling group is that
they are relevant to the research questions and topic under
investigation since they operate within the active corporate

environment. Thus, some of the dominant questions that they
will be asked will include the decision-making process in high-
level policy groups. More precisely, the research will assisted
major causes of policy failures in organizations. For instance,
the data gathered from this sample will help to answer the
questions of why groupthink brings about errors in decision-
making. Part of this study will explore the tendency for firms to
have premature and extreme concurrence seeking behaviors
among group members.
There are various areas in groupthink research that I feel
many studies have fallen short. For instance, not much has been
explored about the groupthink dynamics in project teams and
their impacts on performance (Reaves, 2018, p. 15). In addition,
there are gaps in research in areas such as determining whether
or not team members have the capability to detect groupthink
climates in organizations or not. Teams that go through
groupthink on their daily experiences may not understand how it
is really a problem.
References
Reaves, J. (2018). A Study of Groupthink in Project Teams
(Doctoral Thesis, Walden
University).
Silver, D. (2013). Managing Corporate Communications in the
Age of Restructuring, Crisis and
Litigation: Revisiting Groupthink in the Boardroom. New York:
J. Ross Publishing.

Running head: GROUPTHINK
GROUPTHINK
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Groupthink is one of the major problems that prevent
timely and effective decision-making in the American business
environment. In my effort to explore this problem, I
conceptualized a research topic for this study as Groupthink in
Corporate America. The study was driven by the desire to
understand the state of paralysis that sweeps over organizational
boardrooms or business units. These problems generate adverse
impacts on an organization, especially in situations in which a
company is in a major crisis and needs timely intervention. For
example, an organization that is facing processes such as
possible litigations, restructurings, and crises may be crippled
by the groupthink bottlenecks in corporate decision-making
(Silver, 2013, p. 78). Thus, groupthink is one of the challenges
that deter generation of independent ideas, making the spread of
knowledge and innovation harder (DeMers, 2018, p. 1).
Groupthink is a major threat to an organization’s sustainability
ate very business level. This problem is partly magnified by the
communication progression that characterized the 21st century.
There are various reasons why there further research is
needed in the area of groupthink in American organizations.

First, the study seeks to explore the main aspects of groupthink
syndromes that affect most American companies. The core
symptoms of groupthink can be categorized into three major
elements: overestimations of the power of morality of the
group, closed-mindedness, as well as pressures towards
uniformity. The study will examine the extent to which these
three categories of groupthink are dominant in the American
corporate society. These research objectives are founded on the
idea that groups that have fallen prey to these syndromes tend to
believe that it is better, and more powerful to have
unquestioning faith in its own moral authorities (Chen, Tsai &
Shu, 2009, p. 138). This study will also be efficacious in
exploring warnings from external members and how firms tend
to underestimate the competence and strengths of relevant
outgroups with which they are competing. There exists a paucity
of knowledge associated with within-group consensus in
groupthink literature (Hassan, 2013, p. 226). Therefore, the
study will examine how people who differ with the dominant
group’s position fail to voice their concern. Of specific interest
in this area will include exploration of the ways in which groups
often pile pressure on members ho deviate from the group’s
position.
The research will be conducted in the United States. To
this effect, employees and company leaders of three major
multinational companies will be selected for data gathering. The
participants will be selected through a process of stratified
random sampling in order to increase representativeness of the
sample. The reason for selecting this sampling group is that
they are relevant to the research questions and topic under
investigation since they operate within the active corporate
environment. Thus, some of the dominant questions that they
will be asked will include the decision-making process in high-
level policy groups. More precisely, the research will assisted
major causes of policy failures in organizations. For instance,
the data gathered from this sample will help to answer the
questions of why groupthink brings about errors in decision-

making. Part of this study will explore the tendency for firms to
have premature and extreme concurrence seeking behaviors
among group members.
There are various areas in groupthink research that I feel
many studies have fallen short. For instance, not much has been
explored about the groupthink dynamics in project teams and
their impacts on performance (Reaves, 2018, p. 15). In addition,
there are gaps in research in areas such as determining whether
or not team members have the capability to detect groupthink
climates in organizations or not. Teams that go through
groupthink on their daily experiences may not understand how it
is really a problem.
References
Reaves, J. (2018). A Study of Groupthink in Project Teams
(Doctoral Thesis, Walden
University).
Silver, D. (2013). Managing Corporate Communications in the
Age of Restructuring, Crisis and
Litigation: Revisiting Groupthink in the Boardroom. New York:
J. Ross Publishing.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONAlmost every organization will incur a le.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONAlmost every organization will incur a le.docx

Similar to CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONAlmost every organization will incur a le.docx (20)

More from sleeperharwell

More from sleeperharwell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONAlmost every organization will incur a le.docx