Leadership in extreme contexts: A groupthink analysis of the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster
Abstract
Groupthink, as traditionally conceived, is a failure in group decision making that occurs in highly cohesive groups. In the current case study, we propose an alternative potential form of groupthink in which the group's cohesiveness results from the shared pursuit of a collective goal rather than from strong interpersonal bonds between members. Our model, recognizing the multifaceted nature of cohesion, assumes that a group whose members are united in pursuit of a valued collective goal while guided by a directive leader may experience breakdowns in the decision process. Specifically, drawing on reviews of personal accounts, media descriptions, online interviews, and past empirical papers, we propose that the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster can be understood in part from a groupthink perspective. Applications for the proposed model are discussed, along with implications for leaders seeking to improve organizational decision‐making practices.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Groupthink has been widely discussed in disciplines outside health care.
“Groupthink has been widely discussed in a variety of disciplines outside health care, including psychology, business and organization, political science, communication, and others (Burnette et al., 2011; Esser, 1998; Hällgren, 2010; Mpeera Ntayi et al., 2010; Pautz & Forrer, 2013; Ricciuti, 2014; Turner & Pratkanis, 2014).”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Burnette et al., 2011
Cites
Leana, C. R. (1985) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638501100102 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
The power motive as an influence on group decision making.
Fodor, E. M., & Smith, T. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.178 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Kramer, R. M. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2762 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review
DiPierro, K., Lee, H., Pain, K. J., Durning, S. J., & Choi, J. J. (2022) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2021.1987404 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., & Forsyth, D. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Richmond (US)
- Corresponding author
- Burnette, Jeni L.
- Pollack, Jeffrey M.
- Forsyth, Donelson R.
- Venue
- Journal of Leadership Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-15
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 29-40
- ISSN
- 1935-2611 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-262X
- OpenAlex
- W2038646450
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Leadership Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- groupthink, group decision making, group cohesion, directive leadership, leadership, organizational decision-making, extreme environments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review