Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Team Dynamics and PerformanceConstruction Project Management and PerformanceLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Groupthink in temporary organizations

Hällgren, Markus·2010·International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
DOI 10.1108/17538371011014044
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of groupthink in temporary organizations. Only anecdotally has the literature touched upon how the temporary organization's structure may foster groupthink. Studies of faulty group processes are imperative since temporary organizations are becoming more common. Design/methodology/approach: Following the design used by several authors who analyzed the Everest events, this paper is an historic in‐depth case study based on accounts of several survivors. Findings: Three out of four features of groupthink are found and analyzing the Everest events there are several symptoms to groupthink that may be present in any temporary organization. Research limitations/implications: Groupthink as a theoretical idea is well developed but has received limited attention in a temporary organization (project) setting. More attention should be given to group dynamics in general and groupthink in particular. Practical implications: Some practices are suggested to avoid groupthink. Furthermore, project managers find themselves in a balancing act between freedom, efficiency, and fast decisions. The context should be allowed to decide which the correct approach is. Finally, blowing the whistle should never be a problem and never be punished. Originality/value: The setting of this paper is original although it is to the structure a common project. When life is at stake, features and symptoms of groupthink become more evident. The theoretical field is almost non‐existent in a temporary organization setting hence there is a considerable value to the theoretical development of temporary organizations and groupthink.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/17538371011014044

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Snook, S.A. (2002), Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of US Black Hawks over Northern Iraq, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  2. Snook, S.A. and Connor, J.C. (2005), “The price of progress: structurally induced inaction”, in Starbuck, W.H. and Farjoun, M. (Eds), Organization at the Limit, Lessons from the Columbia Disaster, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 178‐201.
  3. Useem, M. (2001), “The leadership lessons of Mount Everest”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 9, pp. 51‐8.

Cited by

See all 48

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hällgren, M.
Affiliations
Umeå University (SE)
Corresponding author
Hällgren, Markus
ORCID
Hällgren, Markus
Venue
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2010-01-26
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
94-110
ISSN
1753-8378 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/17538371011014044
OpenAlex
W2039381132
Cited by
47
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
groupthink, temporary organizations, project teams, group dynamics, project management, whistleblowing, organizational structure, decision-making

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.