Journal of Applied Psychology 1999, Vol. 84, No.'2, 297-306 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/99/S3.00 The Organizational Application of Groupthink and Its Limitations in Organizations Jin Nam Choi University of Michigan Myung Un Kim Seoul National University 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 perfor- mance, 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. Groupthink is a concurrence-seeking tendency that can impede collective decision-making processes and lead to poor decisions that, in turn, induce fiascoes (Janis, 1972, 1982). Janis (1972) defined groupthink as "a mode of think- ing that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for una- nimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action" (p. 8). Janis further enumer- ated a comprehensive list of antecedents of groupthink, symptoms of groupthink, and symptoms of defective deci- sion making that produce unfavorable outcomes. Since its original conceptualization, the groupthink model has been widely investigated in experimental settings (for reviews, see Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Street, 1997). Laboratory studies have mainly focused on antecedent conditions of groupthink, including leadership (e.g., Leana, 1985), group cohesiveness (e.g., Callaway & Esser, 1984), external threat (e.g., Turner, Pratkanis, Probasco, & Leve, 1992), and so on. These studies have revealed that closed leadership style and external threat, particularly time pressure, appear to promote symptoms of groupthink and defective decision making (Neck & Moorhead, 1995); on the other hand, the Jin Nam Choi, Department of Psychology, University of Mich- igan; Myung Un Kim, Department of Psychology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. We express our appreciation to Lance Sandelands, Fiona Lee, Richard Saavedra, Amiram Vinokur, and Susan Ashford. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jin Nam Choi, Department of Psychology, University of Michi- gan, 525 East University, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109. Electronic mail may be sent to jinnamc@umich.edu. effect of group cohesiveness is still inconclusive (Mullen, Anthony, Salas, & Driskell, 1994). Furthermore, a number of experimental researchers and their reviews have at- tempted to provide the underlying psychological mecha- nisms producing groupthink, such as social categorization (Turner et al., 1992), compliance and internalization (Mc- Cauley, 1989), and group polarization (Whyte, 1989). In practical terms, researchers have applied the groupthink model to various managerial domains, such as decision making (Miranda, 1994), leadership (Hughes, Gin- nett, & Curphy, 1993), and the management of organiza- tional teams (Kayser, 1994). In these domains, groupthink has been regarded as a detrimental group process (e.g., Miranda, 1994). As a result, many training programs ad- dressing leadership and team performance have incorpo- rated various strategies to avoid groupthink in the work- place (e.g., Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, & McGrath, 1990). Nevertheless, there is little empirical evidence for demon- strating groupthink's negative implications in organiza- tional settings. What evidence there is has been extrapolated from the political arena using case analysis (e.g., Janis, 1972, 1982; Moorhead, Ference, & Neck, 1991) or from laboratory settings involving college students (e.g., Driskell & Salas, 1991; Leana, 1985). The only available empirical data on groupthink derived from work teams in business settings that we know of are those of Manz and Sims (1982). To demonstrate groupthink's potential in organizational settings, they briefly illustrated three anecdotal cases: two from produc- tion teams and one from a quality-management team. They concluded that groupthink might hinder the effectiveness of autonomous work groups, and they encouraged further re- search "based on a more rigorous quantitative base through 297