Cited by 142Ethics in Business and EducationTeam Dynamics and PerformanceLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

Linking groupthink to unethical behavior in organizations

Sims, Ronald R.·1992·Journal of Business Ethics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf01686345

Cites

23 of 23 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sims, R. R.
Affiliations
William & Mary (US)
Corresponding author
Sims, Ronald R.
Venue
Journal of Business Ethics
Published
1992-09
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
651-662
ISSN
  • 0167-4544 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0697
OpenAlex
W1982050054
Cited by
142
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 19
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Business Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
groupthink, unethical behavior, organizational decision-making, beech nuts, Salomon Brothers, arrogance, overcommitment, group loyalty, devil's advocate, dialectics, conflict management

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