Cited by 39Team Dynamics and PerformanceLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Leadership in extreme contexts: A groupthink analysis of the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster

Burnette, Jeni L., Pollack, Jeffrey M., Forsyth, Donelson R.·2011·Journal of Leadership Studies

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

Crossref · 10.1002/jls.20190

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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