106 TURNER AND PRATKANIS, and experience conditions of high stress with low self esteem and little hope. of finding a better solution to a pressing problem than that favored by the. leader or inf luential menbers, When present these antecedent conditions are hypothesized to foster the. extreme consensus seeking characteristic of groupthink This in tr trn is pre. dicted to lead to two categories of undesirable decision making processes The. t irst traditionally labeled symptoms of groupthink include ilh rsion of invulner. ability collective rationalization stereotypes of outgroups self censorship. mindguards and belief in the inherent morality of the group The second. typically identitiecl as symptoms of det ective decision making involve the in. conrplete survey ofalternatives and objectives poor information search failure. to appraise the risks of the preferred soh rtion and selective information pro. cessing Not surprisingly these combined fbrces are predicted to result in. extrenrely det ective decision making performance by the group. The range of the groupthink theory is breathtaking Groupthink is one. of the few social science models that has had a truly interdisciplinary impact. f or example even a cursory scan of the literatures in political science. communications organizational theory social psychology managenrent strat. egy counseling decision science conrputer science information technology. engineering management health care and marketing reveals the pervasive. appeal and influence of the groupthink concept lndeed the concept of. groupthink has also captured the imagination of the general public Clearly. then groupthink has had a powerful impact on an enormous variety of. literatures lndeed as early as 1975 merely 3 years after the publication. of J anis s 1972 volume the term groupthink appeared in Websteris New. Collegiate Dictionary The entry reads, group think n ltgroup I think as in doublethink l conformity to. group values and ethics, Few social science models can clainr to have such an impact lt is fitting. then atter 25 years ofgroupthink theory and research we appraise groupthink. its history and its fnture, lhe purpose of this special issue is to codity and integrate the many diverse. perspectives on groupthink that have appeared over the past two and a half. decades and to critically appraise the concept its contributions and its poten. tial The issue draws together r esearchers from a variety of social science. disciplines who examine groupthink theory and research from their unique. perspectives and develop extraordinarily wide ranging implications The pa. pers in this volume represent the full range of opinion on groupthink Perhaps. what is most intriguing about this volume is that each paper relies on identical. evidence to marshall its theoretical arsenal However as Janis 1982 would. suggest evidence like groupthink is eminently interpretable in a variety of. ways Indeed the views of groupthink are at once provocative and fre. quently con tradictory, To place groupthink in context we first provide a briefhistory ofthis research. TWENTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUPTHINK THEORY AND RESEARCH t07. and then go on to examine how the papers in this volume reflect the current. state ofgroupthink theory and research,TRACING THE HISTORY OF GROUPTHINK RESEARCH. Etnpirical Research on Groupthink Why S o Little, Undoubtedly groupthink speaks to the intuitive scientist in us J anis s intro. dnction of the concept in 1972 spawned a tidal wave of attention from textbook. writers in social psychology and management Likewise the concept captured. the imagination of the media and press providing as it did comprehensible. explanations tbr sone of the major decision fiascoes of the time such as the. Bay of Pigs decision Watergate the Viet Nam War escalation decision Pearl. Harbor and so forth After two and a half decades that popularity persists. today Groupthink has been applied to such novel group decisions as Nazi. Gern rany s decision toinvade the Soviet Union in 194 l lsrael s lack of prepared. ness fbr the October 1973 war Ford Motor Company s decision to market the. Edsel Gruenenthal Chemie s decision to nrarket the drug thalidomide Raven. Rtrbin 1976 NASA sdecisiontolaunchtheChallengerspaceshuttle Aronson. 1988 Esser Lindoerfer 1989 Moorhead Ference Neck l99l the Wa. tergate cover up Cline 1994 the Carter Administration s decision to use. military measures to rescue lranian hostages Ridgeway 1983 Smith 1984. and the South Moluccan hostage taking Rosenthal t Hart 1989. Yet despite this popularity there is a disturbing irony about the history of. research that followed the publication of J anis s original model Groupthink. has been the subject of less that two dozen empirical investigations ln other. words roughly one empirical study per year has been conducted on the concept. Compare this to the volume of research that has been conducted on other topics. such as cognitive dissonance attribution participation elaboration likelihood. model of persuasion or even the sleeper effect in persuasion Thus groupthink. despite its overwhelming appeal and its widespread impact has been examined. empirically in only an extremely limited fashion, There are several possible reasons why groupthink has been neglected in. empirical research First group research is notoriously difficult to conduct as. noted by Steiner and others Further the groupthink model exacerbates this. situation because it involves relatively large numbers of independent and de. pendent variables and because its theoretical specifications are generally quite. an rbiguous I he sheer number of variables inf lates the power requirements of. controlled experimental research ancl poses coding complexities fbr archival. case research, More troublesome are theoretical ambiguities characteristic of the group. think theory Recent theoretical reviews suggest that at least three interpreta. tions of the model can be drawn from groupthink work see further Turner. Pratkanis Probasco Leve 1992 A strict interpretation ofthe groupthink. theory holds that groupthink should occur only when oll the antecedent condi. tions are present An additive interpretation suggests that groupthink should. r08 TURNER AND PRATKANIS, beconrb increasingly more pronounced as the nLtmber of antecedent conditions. increases However no published studies provide evidence for either of these. interpretations A third interpretation of the groupthink model the liberal. or particularistic is more consistent with current evidence This perspective. suggests that groupthink outcomes will depend on the unique situational prop. erties invoked by the purticuLar set ofantecedent conditions found in each. groupthink situation, Moreover the conceptualizations of the antecedents and consequences of. groupthink are likewise equivocal consequently operationalizations are left. unspecified by the theory Thus researchers have little or even conflicting. guidance from the theory about how to either operationalize experinental. variables or code archival data Thns just how totranslate theoretical concepts. into observable and measurable constnlcts becomes a source of heated debate. All of these combine to make groupthink a difficult topic for research Yet. despite these difficulties certain commonalities have emerged. TWENTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUPTHINK THE THREE PHASES OF. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, As with nrany new theoretical developments groupthink research can be. segmented into roughly three phases corresponding to Feynn ran s discussion. clf research progress Feynman 1985 ln the first phase following the introduc. tion of the concept research is concerned with direct tests of the nodel The. second phase revolves around extensions ofthe model whereas the third cen. ters on retbrmu lations l,Phase I Direct Tests of the Model. Research following the introduction of the groupthink model focused on em. pirical tests of the model The initial case studies centered on analyzing classic. and novel group decisions for evidence ofgroupthink e g Tetlock l9l9 Exper. imental studies were concerned with developing operationalizations of key. dependent variables Prime among these variables was the construct of cohe. sion Cohesion was largely operationalized using the Lott and Lott 1966. approach tocohesion as mutual attraction Other studies examined the role of. directive leadership style Althongh this construct was operationalized in a. variety of fashions most incorporated some form of limitation on group discus. sion Archival studies examined new case examples of groupthink and reana. lyzed some original cases In general these two streams of investigations pro. vided equivocal support for the groupthink model ln general cohesion as. operationalized as mutual attraction had little effects on group outcomes. whereas instructinggroup members tolimit their discussion generallyresulted. lln the ibllowing sections we brietly disr uss each phase of research and allude to ernpirical. findings For a nrore exhaustive review see the conttibutions in this volume as well as Aldag and. Fuller 1992 Park 1990 and Turner ct al 1992, TWENTY FI E YEARS OF GROUPTHINK THEORY AND RESEARCH r09. not surprisingly in members thereby constricting their discussions e g Cal. laway Esser 1984 Courtwright 1978 Flowers 1977 Leana 1985 Archival. research e g Raven l9l4 Tetlock 1979 Esser Lindoerfer 1989 Hensley. Griffin 1986 provided some support but also raised some critical questions. regarding the operationalization of key constructs and processes ln general. these studies provided largely eqnivocal support for the groupthink model. This resulted in strong critiques of the concept and more attention torevisions. of the model e g Longley Pruitt 1980 Steiner 1982,Plta Ee 2 Exten sions o f tlte Mttdel. Partially in response tothe failure tofind complete support for the groupthink. model research began toexamine the effects of additional antecedent variables. on groupthink processes For example Fodor and Smith 1982 examined the. effbcts of power motivation on groupthink ontcomes Kroon and colleagues. Kroon t Hart van Kreveld 1991 Kroon van Kreveld Rabbie 1992. investigated the effects of accountability and gender on groupthink whereas. Kameda and Sugimori 1993 considered how decision rules might affect group. think symptoms and processes Once again however this research demon. strated the intricacies of attempting to produce the full constellation of group. think effects,Phase 3 Reformulation of the ModeL, Not surprisingly in view of the lukewarm support for the model subsequent. work tended totbcns on refbcusing and reformulation of the model For example. t Hart developed the concept of gror rpthink as collective optimisnr and collective. avoidance t Hart 1998 Moorheacl Ference and Neck 1991 used the space. shuttle Challenger disaster to underscore the importance of timing in group. think processes Turner et al 1992 used the concept ofsocial identity mainte. nance to examine groupthink Whyte 1989 examined the role of risk and. choice shifts whereas McCauley 1989 considered the impact of conformity. and compliance pressLlres in groupthink decisions,GROUPTHINK RESEARCH THE STATE OF THE FIBLD. It is clear from the previous discussion that empirical evidence for the group. think model has been equivocal Recent reviews ofgroupthink research draw. three major conclusions regarding the state of the groupthink theory First case. and laboratory research rarely document the fr rll constellation of groupthink. effects For example although Tetlock 1979 and J anis 1972 1982 provide. sonre support for the full groupthink model both recent and classic case analy. ses demonstrate that groupthink can occur in situations where only a limited. number of antecedents can be discerned see for example Raven 1974. Longley Pruitt 1980 t Hart 1998 for reviews see Aldag Fuller 1993. Esser 1998 Park 1990 Other studies suggest that groupthink is not apparent. il0 TURNER AND PRATKANIS, when even most of the antecedents conditions exist e g Neck Moorhead. 1992 Likewise laboratory studies although they have experimentally manip. ulated only a few groupthink antecedents rarely provide supporting evidence. for the full groupthink model see for example Callaway Esser 1984 Cal. laway Marriott Esser 1985 Flowers l977 Leana 1985 Thus whenlabora. tory experiments find evidence for groupthink it tends tobe partial for exam. ple finding that directive leadership does limit discussion but that this does not. interact with cohesion and ultimately does not affect other decision processes. Moreover both laboratory and case research provide conflicting findings. regarding the adequacy of conceptualizations of antecedents For example. laboratory experiments as well as analyses of both the Nixon White House. Raven 1974 and the Challenger space shuttle decision Esser Lindoerfer. 1989 found little evidence for the traditional conception of cohesion as mutual. attraction see Callaway Esser 1984 Callaway et al 1985 Flowers 1977. Fodor Smith 1982 Leana 1985 Despite its prominence in most groupthink. case studies threat as operationalized in laboratory experiments rarely has. had any consequences for any group decision making outcomes or processes. see Calfaway Esser 1984 Callaway et al 1985 Flowers 1977 Fodor. Snrith 1982 Leana 1985, Seconcl few experimental studies have documented the end result and the. hallnrark of groupthink the low quality defective decisions For example stud. ies investigating the etl ects of cohesion and leadership style show no adverse. etfects on performance Flowers 19111Fodor Smith 1982i Leana 1985. Studies investigating the effects of social cohesion and discussion procedures. e g restricted vs participatory discttssion similarly provide no evidence of. impaired decision performance under groupthink conditions Callaway Esser. 1984 Callaway et aL 1985 Courtwright 1978, A third conclusion drawn from groupthink research is that questionable. support has been provided for the cansal seqllences associated with the original. model No research has supported the hypothesized links among the five ante. cedents the seven groupthink symptoms and the eight defective decision mak. ing symptoms,RESPONSES TO GROUPTHINK RESEARCH REJECTION. RE FORMULATION R EVITALIZATION, The equivocal sr rpport for the groupthink theory leads to what Greenwald. and Ronis 1981 term the disconfirmation dilemma ln short is the failure to. completely replicate the groupthink etfect a result of poor theoretical specitica. tions poor research design or a combination of both. Not surprisingly taken together these findings have fbstered a variety of. evaluations regarding the viability of the groupthink theory These opinions. range from outright rejection to reconceptualization ofkey antecedents to revi. talizing the concept to meet the requirements of current situations The papers. in this volume reflect these diverse perspectives, TWENTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUPTHINK THEORY AND RESEARCH 111. Rejection of tlte Groupthink Model Pessitttisnt about the Finding s. One view of groupthink holds that the model has indeed outlived its use. fLlness ln their paper for this issue Fuller and Aldag 1998 argue for this. point of view suggesting that the limited evidence for the complete groupthink. theory ofltets any potential usefulness of the model They detail a number of. conditions hypothesized to lead to such widespread unconditional acceptance. of the model despite the circumscribed empirical findings. Reformulation of the Groupthink Model Reconceptualizing the Concept and. tlte Process, A second view of groupthink suggests that the nature of the empirical evi. dence warrants a nrore fine grained analysis of both the groupthink concept. and the theoretical underpinnings of the model ln short this perspective holds. that groupthink needs to be reformulated in significant ways before attaining. its purported usefu lness, ln his paper for this issue Whyte 1998 uses the concept of collective efficacy. to help explain the failure of cohesion as a key antecedent variable Similarly. Kramer 1998 suggests that other motivations such as the motivation to. naintain political power may produce groupthink in the governmental arena. McCauley docunents the historical basis of the original groupthink phenome. non and provides a counterexplanation in terms of conformity pressures Turner. and Pratkanis provide a new interpretation of groupthink in terms of social. identity nraintenance Peterson et al present their methodology for rigorously. examining archival group decisions and develop the implications tbr filture. groupthink theoretical and empirical work, Revitalizatiort Formttlatin g G rou pthink after Tw enty Five Years. Closely aligned with the previous view is the perspective that groupthink. can indeed be a useful explanatory concept for both theoretical and practical. reasons ln his paper t Hart describes interventions designed toprevent group. think outcomes Esser reexamines groupthink findings and discr rsses their. impact on groupthink processes Moorhead Neck and West examine the intri. guing potential impact of groupthink in increasingly prevalent team based. organization al environments, GROUPTHINK AFTER TWENTY FIVE YEARS LESSONS FROM THE. EVOLUTION OF A THEORY, What then can be said about groupthink after a quarter of a century The. papers in this volume provide an astonishing array of responses tothis qnestion. Yet the evolution of groupthink research also provides some lessons about the. concluct of science and the cumulativeness of research We note four lessons. n2 TURNER AND PRATKANIS,Lesson l The Pov er of IntLtitive Appeal. What can explain the phenomenalpopularityof the groupthink model partic. ularly in light of the limited body of empirical evidence for the concept The. papers by both McCauley and by Fuller and Aldag convincingly argue that. the intuitive appeal of the groupthink concept and the seductiveness of its. tbrmulation at times can overwhelm the scientific evidence on the topic Group. think is undoubtedly a concept that touches a chord within a broad spectrum. of individuals lts emergence during the turbulent 1970s likely contribr rted to. its popularity It is ironic that the concurrence seeking that Janis so warned. against may have played a role in the widespread acceptance of the groupthink. despite the lack of a solid body of empiricalevidence supporting it Yet on the. other hand this acceptance provides a clear nressage for researchers wishing. to propagate their findings to a broad audience, Lessott 2 T lte Criticality of RepLicatiort Re search. Despite the limited number of groupthink studies the cumulative body of. evidence has important implications for research practice As Feynman 1985. notes extensions of any theory are predicated first upon replications of the. conditions under which the phenomena are expected tooccur It is this process. of replication that provides crucial information regarding the nature of the. concept and the subtle nuances associated with the process ofits production. Groupthink research unreservedly attests to this process Early work at. tempted to replicate the groupthink process and in doing so provided invaluable. insights into the conditions under which groupthink can and cannot occur. Lesson 3 The Irnportattce of Cumulative Controlled Designs. Part of the appeal of the groupthink model may be attributable to the notable. case studies Janis used to ilhlstrate the concept Yet as Janis noted Janis. 1982 and as subsequent research denronstrated controlled experimental de. signs are crucial conlponents tbr delineating a theoretical phenomenon More. over groupthink research provides compelling evidence that the cumulative. body of research is vitally important fbr understanding the subtlety and intrica. cies of producing the phenomena,Lessorr 4 The Dangers of Unconditional Acceptance. Finally and perhaps nrost crucially the evolution of groupthink theory illus. trates the hazards ofdivorcing intuitive acceptance from scientific evaluation of. a concept As Fuller and Aldag state the groupthink concept is most frequently. unconditionally reported as fact in a variety of publications and textbooks. This divorcing of belief and scientific evaluation has unequivocal negative. consequences for both the consumer of research and its practitioners The. unconditional acceptance of the groupthink phenonenon without due regard. for the body of scientific evidence surrounding it leads to unthinking conformity. TWENTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUPTHINK THEORY AND RESEARCH 1 I3. to a theoretical standpoint that may be invalid for the majority of circum. stances This in turn leads to a spiral ofignorance and superstition that is not. easily circumvented How incongruous that the concept warning us of the. dangers of overconformity becomes a victim of that conformity. It is our hope that the papers in this volume will serve both to document. the very real contributions of the groupthink model as well as its limitations. and to stimulate further research on the topic so that the concurrence seeking. that is the hallmark of groupthink becomes a phenomenon that is understood. rather than emulated,REFERENCES, Aldag R J Fuller S R 1993 Beyond t iasco A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon. and a new model ofgroup decision processes Psychological Bullatin ll3 553 552. Aronson E 1988 Tha social animal New York Freeman, Callaway M R Esser J K 1984 Groupthink Effects of cohesiveness and problern solving. procedures on group decision making Social Behavior and Parsonalitt 12 157 164. Callaway M R Marriott R G Esser J K 1985 Ettects of dominance on group decision. making Toward a stress reduction explanation ofgroupthink J ournal oJ Pcrsonalitl and Social. Pslc rologr 4 949 952, Cline R J W 1994 Groupthink and the Watergate cover up The illusion of unanimity In L. R Frey Ed Group communication in contert S tudie r oJ natural groirps Hillsdale NJ Erlbaurn. Courtwright J A 1978 A laboratory investigation ofgroupthink Communication Monographs. 45 229 246, Esser J K 1998 Alive and well afler twenty five years A review of groupthink Lesearch. Organizational Bahavior and Human Decision Processes 73 116 141. Esser J K Lindoerf er J S 1989 Groupthink and the space shuttle Challenger accident. Toward a quantitative case analysis Journal oJ Behavioral Decision Making 2 167 177. Feynman R P 1985 Surelt t ou re joking Mn Fq nman New York Bantam. Feynman R P 1988 What do you care w hat other people think New York Norton. Flowers M L 1977 A laboratory test of some implications of Janis s groupthink hypothesis. Journal oJ Personalitl and Social Psychology 35 888 896. Fodor E M Smith T 1982 The power motive as an int luence on group decision making. Journal oJ Personality and Social Psychology 42 178 185. Fuller S R Aldag R J 1998 Organizational tonypandy Lessons fiom a quarter century ofthe. groupthink phenomenon Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Proces res 73 163 184. Greenwald A G Ronis D L 1981 On the conceptual discont irmation of theories Personalitf. and S ocial P st chologt Bulletin 7 l3l 137, Hart P 1 1998 Preventing groupthink revisited Evaluating and letbrming groups in govern. rnent Organl atiortul Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73 306 326. Hensley T R Griftln G W 1986 Victims of groupthink The Kent State University board. ol trustees and the 1977 gymnasium r ontroversy J ournal oJ ConJlict Resolution 30 497 531. Janis I L 1972 Victirrt s oJ groupthink Boston Houghton Miftlin. Janis I L 1982 Groupthittk Psychological studies oJ polict decisions and Jiascoes 2nd ed. Boston Houghton Mitflin, Janis I L 1989 Crucial decisions Leadership in policymaking and cri sis management New. York The Free Press, Janis I L Mann F 1977 Decision making New York Free Press. Ka meda T Su gimori S 1993 Ps ych ological en trapmen t in grou p decis ion making An a ssigned. 114 TURNER AND PRATKANIS, decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon Journal oJ Personalitl and Social Psychologl. 65 282 292, Kranrer R M 1998 Revisiting the Bay ol Pigs and Vietnam decisions twenty five years later. How well has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test oftime Orqanizational Behaviorand. H u m an Decisiott Proccsscs 73 236 21 I, Kroon M B R 1 Hart P van Kreveld D 1991 Managing group decision making processes. Individual versus collective accountability and groupthink International Journal oJ ConJ lict. ManaS mcnt 2 91 ll6, Kroon M B R van Kreveld D Rabbie J M 1992 Group versus individual decision making. Etfbcts of accountability and gender on groupthink Small Group Research 23 427458. Leana C R 1985 A partial test of J anis gloupthink model Ettects of group cohesiveness and. leadel behavior on def ective decision making Journal oJ Management Il 5 17. Longley J Pruitt D G 1980 Groupthink A critique of Janis s theory In L Wheeler Ed. Rcviatr oJ personalitl and social psychologl Vol l Beverly Hills Sage. Lott A J Lott B E 1965 Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction A review of. relationships with antecedent and consequent variables Psychological Bulletin 64 259 309. McCauley C 1989 The nature of social influence in groupthink Compliance and internalization. J ou rnal oJ Personality and S ocial Psycholog 57 250 260. McCauley C 1998 Group dynamics and Janisl theory ofgroupthink Backward and tbrward. Orga nization al B eh avior and H unr an Decision Processes 73 142 162. McCauley C 1989 The nature olsocial int luence in groupthink Compliance and internalization. J ournol oJ Par ronalitl and S ocial P rychologl 57 250 260. Moorhead G 1982 Groupthink Hypothesis in need of testing Group and Organization Studies. Moorhead G Ference R Neck C P 199 l Group decision t iascoes continue Space shuttle. Challenger and a revised groupthink tiamework Human Relations 44 539 550. Moorhead G Neck C P West M S 1998 The tendency toward det ective decision making. within self rnanaging tea rs The relevance of groupthink tbr the twenty tirst century OrganiTa. tional Bahavior and H uman Decision Proccsses 73 321 351. trialof U S v John Delorean A case, Neck C P Moorhead G 1992 Jury deliberations in the. analysisof gloupthinkavoidanceandanenhancedtl arnework HnmanRelation r 45 l1lT 1091. Park W 1990 A review of research on groupthink Journal oJ Behavioral Deci rion Making. Paulus P B 1998 Developing consensus about groupthink afler all these years Organiqational. B eh av ior an d H u m an D ecis ion P roce s se r 7 3 362 3 7 4. Peterson R S Owens P D Tetlock P E Fan E T Martorana P 1998 Group dynamics. in top management teams Groupthink vigilance and alternative models of organizational. f ailule and success OrganiTational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73 272 305. Raven B H f998 Groupthink BayofPigsandWatergatereconsidered OrganiTationalBehavior. a nd H u m an Dccision Proces ses 73 352 361, Raven B H 1974 The Nixon grotp Journal oJ Social ssras 30 297 32O. Raven B H Rubin J Z 1976 Social pstchology People in groups New York Wiley. L 1983 The dynamics oJ small groups New York St Martin s Press. Ridgeway C, t Hart P 1989 Managing terrorism The South Moluccan Hostage Taking In. Rosenthal U, U Rosenthal M T Challes P lHalt Eds Copingwithcrises ThemdnagementoJ disasters. riot r and terrorism Springfield IL Challes C Thomas. Snrith S 1984 Groupthink and the hostage rescue mission British Journal oJ Political Science. 15 il7 126, Sreiner I D 1982 Heuristir rnodels of groupthink In H Brandstatter J H Davis G Stocker. Kleiclrgauer Eds l Group decision making pp 503 524 New York Academic Press. TWENTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUPTHINK THEORYAND RESEARCH 115. Tajfel H 1981 Human groups and social categories Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press. Tetlock P E 1979 Identifying victims of groupthink from public statements of decision makers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ST 1314 1324. Tetlock P E Peterson R S McGuire C Chang S Feld P 1992 Assessing political. group dynamics A test ofthe groupthink model Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. Ti rner M E Pratkanis A R 1998 A social identity model of groupthink Organizational. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73 210 235, T rner M E Pratkanis A R Probasco P Leve C 1992 Threat cohesion and group. ettectiven ess Testin g a social iden tity main tenance perspective on groupth ink ournal of Person. ality and S ocial Psychology 63 781 796, Whyte G 1989 Groupthink reconsidered Academy of Management Journal l4 40 56. whyte G 1998 Recasting Janis s groupthink model The key role of collective efficacy in decision. fiascoes Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73 163 184.
Department of the Army (DA) Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) directly to the Director, ATSC (ATIC), 2114 Pershing Avenue, Fort Eustis, VA 23604 or electronically to . firstname.lastname@example.org. Suggested improvements may also be submitted using DA Form 1045 (Army Ideas for Excellence Program (AIEP) Proposal).
Chromo therapy is a centuries which was started from the Egyptian era [3, 24]. In A.D 980, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) formulated a chart of various colors and brought up the concept of warming and cooling colors . In 6th century BC Orpheus, used vibrational medicine of color and light as a mode of healing . Apuleius revealed the diagnosis
3. To know about the design philosophy for the safe and economical design of water tank. 4. To develop programs for the design of water tank of flexible base and rigid base and the underground tank to avoid the tedious calculations. 5. In the end, the programs are validated with the results of manual calculation given in ?Concrete ...
DESIGN OF RECTANGULAR TANKS The components of a Rectangular Tank are- ... Area of steel for pull (A)= T / safe stress in steel Total Area of steel= A? + A. DESIGN OF CIRCULAR TANKS Design of circular tanks is simplest in nature. For same capacity, its construction requires less concrete than rectangular tanks, thus it is economical for large capacity storage. On account of circular shape, it ...
Cognitive Deficits in Spina Bifida Spina bifida is a type of neural tube defect (NTD) which affect 1 to 2 infants per 1000 births (Bassuk & Kibar, 2009). Spina bifida occurs when the neural tube does not close correctly during embryogenesis and can be of different severity (Bassuk & Kibar, 2009). One of the
exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide from January 2011 through May 2011 for about $270. PROBLEM: The sling-style swing seats can crack or split prematurely, posing a fall hazard to consumers. REMEDY: Consumers should immediately stop using the sling-style swing seats, remove the seats from the