Abstract:T his study explores whether the negative impact of "groupthink concurrence-seeking behavior" (GTB) on business process reengineering (BPR) projects is affected by group members personal traits and interpersonal ties within the group. To this purpose we conduct and present the results of a longitudinal controlled field experiment over 18 BPR projects lasting 3 months and involving 18 teams comprising 71 first-year MBA students. The main contribution of this study is twofold. First, we explicitly consider and m… Show more
“…Drawing on the previous discussion, highly cohesive teams are expected to show greater positive ingroup bias and higher negative outgroup discrimination when external task interdependence is high than when it is low. In support of this hypothesis, Riccobono, Bruccoleri, and Größler () noted that in highly cohesive teams, a lack of internal control over project decisions (i.e., a trait of externally dependent NPD projects) accentuated a group’s motivation to disregard any involvement or suggestions coming from the outside. Thus, it is proposed that: H3: External task interdependence will increase the negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and new product competitive advantage.…”
Although team boundary spanning is conducive to achieving new product (NP) competitive advantage, these actions may not always deliver the expected performance. The current study makes an initial attempt to examine factors that undermine team boundary spanning positive effects on NP competitive advantage by proposing and testing a negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, the current study expects team social cohesion to have a stronger negative moderating effect on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage when external task interdependence and project newness are high than when they are low. Data for this study come from 140 NPD projects developed and commercialized by Spanish manufacturing firms in high‐ and medium‐high‐technology sectors. The study’s results reveal a positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, high levels of team social cohesion are shown to reduce the positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Finally, we found that project newness and external task interdependence accentuate the negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. The current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, findings from this study give us new insights into the significance of team boundary spanning to the success of NPs by revealing that boundary‐spanning activities are beneficial to achieving NP competitive advantage. Second, the study departs from existing research in that it exposes a dark side of team social cohesion for NPD teams engaged in boundary spanning activities. Last, the study expands extant research by proposing and demonstrating that project newness and external task interdependence bring about situations in which external groups present a threat to the collective identity of socially cohesive groups.
“…Drawing on the previous discussion, highly cohesive teams are expected to show greater positive ingroup bias and higher negative outgroup discrimination when external task interdependence is high than when it is low. In support of this hypothesis, Riccobono, Bruccoleri, and Größler () noted that in highly cohesive teams, a lack of internal control over project decisions (i.e., a trait of externally dependent NPD projects) accentuated a group’s motivation to disregard any involvement or suggestions coming from the outside. Thus, it is proposed that: H3: External task interdependence will increase the negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and new product competitive advantage.…”
Although team boundary spanning is conducive to achieving new product (NP) competitive advantage, these actions may not always deliver the expected performance. The current study makes an initial attempt to examine factors that undermine team boundary spanning positive effects on NP competitive advantage by proposing and testing a negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, the current study expects team social cohesion to have a stronger negative moderating effect on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage when external task interdependence and project newness are high than when they are low. Data for this study come from 140 NPD projects developed and commercialized by Spanish manufacturing firms in high‐ and medium‐high‐technology sectors. The study’s results reveal a positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Furthermore, high levels of team social cohesion are shown to reduce the positive effect of team boundary spanning on NP competitive advantage. Finally, we found that project newness and external task interdependence accentuate the negative moderating effect of team social cohesion on the relationship between team boundary spanning and NP competitive advantage. The current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, findings from this study give us new insights into the significance of team boundary spanning to the success of NPs by revealing that boundary‐spanning activities are beneficial to achieving NP competitive advantage. Second, the study departs from existing research in that it exposes a dark side of team social cohesion for NPD teams engaged in boundary spanning activities. Last, the study expands extant research by proposing and demonstrating that project newness and external task interdependence bring about situations in which external groups present a threat to the collective identity of socially cohesive groups.
“…The extent to which such phenomena could be a real threat in an operational context has been described by Riccobono et al. () and an example of how they lead groups to ineffective behaviors is reported by McAvoy and Butler (), in their empirical study on two software development teams trying to reach consensus on the way a software package must be developed. In one case, the group chose to adopt a prioritization method different from the one recommended by the Agile Software Development approach, and, even if it was proven to be ineffective, the group seeking for unanimous consensus persisted in adopting it.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The effectiveness of a group decision‐making process may be, however, threatened by a few psychological behaviors which influence the way groups make the decision (Riccobono, Bruccoleri, & Größler, ; Swaab, Phillips, & Schaerer, ). Two organizational behavior theories exist underlining the potential pitfalls of a group decision‐making process, but they explain two different phenomena: the “Abilene Paradox (AP)” (Harvey, ), and “Groupthink (GT)” (Janis & Mann, ).…”
This study focuses on decision-making within operational teams. Grounding our argumentation on group decision-making literature, we argue that adverse behavior patterns may affect the way in which consensus is achieved within the team, and that team performance has an inverted U-shaped relationship with the level of consensus. Then, by relying on leadership literature, we pose the hypothesis that the level of shared leadership inside the group moderates this U-shaped relationship. To empirically test our literature-based argumentation, we use longitudinal data collected in the years 2014 and 2015 from business process reengineering projects, each lasting three months, conducted by 141 master of science students grouped in 34 teams. We conclude by emphasizing that it is important to control for the occurrence of behaviors which lead to "fake" consensus within operational teams, by observing the individuals' satisfaction with respect to the group decision as well as their active participation in the decision-making process.
“…Groupthink has been widely used but there are still debates regarding its validity. For decades groupthink has been widely used in various area such as history [1], health care [23], foreign policy [3,12], and management [11,36]. Contrast to its popularity in application to analyze decision making cases, there are still little efforts in clarifying the groupthink model itself especially the nature of group cohesiveness as one of the groupthink antecedents [4,40].…”
This paper’s purpose is to clarify groupthink phenomena and to assess the devil’s advocacy as a groupthink prevention measure. An agent-based model is presented to formalize group closed-mindedness and insulation in a group decision making setting. The model was validated by showing that groupthink results in the decision with low quality and the group’s inability to explore more alternatives. Besides that, the devil’s advocacy also formulated in the model. The simulation results of different conditions of the devil’s advocacy support Janis’ suggestion to utilize the devil’s advocacy to alleviate groupthink. It is also found that the utilization of devil’s advocacy depends on the group’s condition and the desired amount of conflict to produce the best decision.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
