Search results for: groupthink
Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 3

Search results for: groupthink

3 Groupthink: The Dark Side of Team Cohesion

Authors: Farhad Eizakshiri

Abstract:

The potential for groupthink to explain the issues contributing to deterioration of decision-making ability within the unitary team and so to cause poor outcomes attracted a great deal of attention from a variety of disciplines, including psychology, social and organizational studies, political science, and others. Yet what remains unclear is how and why the team members’ strivings for unanimity and cohesion override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. In this paper, the findings of a sequential explanatory mixed-methods research containing an experiment with thirty groups of three persons each and interviews with all experimental groups to investigate this issue is reported. The experiment sought to examine how individuals aggregate their views in order to reach a consensual group decision concerning the completion time of a task. The results indicated that groups made better estimates when they had no interaction between members in comparison with the situation that groups collectively agreed on time estimates. To understand the reasons, the qualitative data and informal observations collected during the task were analyzed through conversation analysis, thus leading to four reasons that caused teams to neglect divergent viewpoints and reduce the number of ideas being considered. Reasons found were the concurrence-seeking tendency, pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, and the illusion of invulnerability. It is suggested that understanding the dynamics behind the aforementioned reasons of groupthink will help project teams to avoid making premature group decisions by enhancing careful evaluation of available information and analysis of available decision alternatives and choices.

Keywords: groupthink, group decision, cohesiveness, project teams, mixed-methods research

Procedia PDF Downloads 360
2 Biases in Macroprudential Supervision and Their Legal Implications

Authors: Anat Keller

Abstract:

Given that macro-prudential supervision is a relatively new policy area and its empirical and analytical research are still in their infancy, its theoretical foundations are also lagging behind. This paper contributes to the developing discussion on effective legal and institutional macroprudential supervision frameworks. In the first part of the paper, it is argued that effectiveness as a key benchmark poses some challenges in the context of macroprudential supervision such as the difficulty in proving causality between supervisory actions and the achievement of the supervisor’s mission. The paper suggests that effectiveness in the macroprudential context should, therefore, be assessed at the supervisory decision-making process (to be differentiated from the supervisory outcomes). The second part of the essay examines whether insights from behavioural economics can point to biases in the macroprudential decision-making process. These biases include, inter alia, preference bias, groupthink bias and inaction bias. It is argued that these biases are exacerbated in the multilateral setting of the macroprudential supervision framework in the EU. The paper then examines how legal and institutional frameworks should be designed to acknowledge and perhaps contain these identified biases. The paper suggests that the effectiveness of macroprudential policy will largely depend on the existence of clear and robust transparency and accountability arrangements. Accountability arrangements can be used as a vehicle for identifying and addressing potential biases in the macro-prudential framework, in particular, inaction bias. Inclusiveness of the public in the supervisory process in the form of transparency and awareness of the logic behind policy decisions may assist in minimising their potential unpopularity thus promoting their effectiveness. Furthermore, a governance structure which facilitates coordination of the macroprudential supervisor with other policymakers and incorporates outside perspectives and opinions could ‘break-down’ groupthink bias as well as inaction bias.

Keywords: behavioural economics and biases, effectiveness of macroprudential supervision, legal and institutional macroprudential frameworks, macroprudential decision-making process

Procedia PDF Downloads 236
1 Practical Limitations of the Fraud Triangle Framework in Fraud Prevention

Authors: Alexander Glebovskiy

Abstract:

Practitioners charged with fraud prevention and investigation strongly rely on the Fraud Triangle framework developed by Joseph T. Wells in 1997 while analyzing the causes of fraud at business organizations. The Fraud Triangle model explains fraud by elements such as pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. This view is not fully suitable for effective fraud prevention as the Fraud Triangle model provides limited insight into the causation of fraud. Fraud is a multifaceted phenomenon, the contextual factors of which may not fit into any framework. Employee criminal behavior in business organizations is influenced by environmental, individual, and organizational aspects. Therefore, further criminogenic factors and processes facilitating fraud in organizational settings need to be considered in the root-cause analysis: organizational culture, leadership style, groupthink effect, isomorphic behavior, crime of obedience, displacement of responsibility, lack of critical thinking and unquestioning conformity and loyalty.

Keywords: criminogenesis, fraud triangle, fraud prevention, organizational culture

Procedia PDF Downloads 235