管理决策期末作业
替代品的讨论和评价。它不是简单地不知道做一个首选的解决方案的问题;问题是这一群体中的批判性思维的刺激之一。
影响对处方预防
修订后的模型表明，预防群体思维的更具体的处方可。首先，小组成员需要知道的是很短的决策时间框架对决策过程的影响。当必须迅速作出决定，将会有更多的压力，同意，即持不同政见者，自我审查，避免专家意
When a decision must be made quickly, there
will be more pressure to agree, i.e., discouragement of dissent, self-censorship, avoidance of expert opinion, and assumptions about unanimity. The type of leadership suggested here is not one that sits back and simply does not make known her or his preferred solution. This type of leader must be one that requires all members to speak up with concerns, questions, and new information. The leader must know what some of these concerns are and which members are likely to have serious doubts so that the people with concerns can be called upon to voice them. This type of group leadership does not simply assign the role of devil's advocate and step out of the way. This leader actually plays the role or makes sure that others do. A leader with the required style to avoid groupthink is not a laissez faire leader or non-involved participative leader. This leader is active in directing the activities of the group but does not make known a preferred solution. The group still must develop and evaluate alternative courses of action, but under the direct influence of a strong, demanding leader who forces critical appraisal of all alternatives. Finally, a combination of the two variables suggests that the leader needs to help members to avoid the problems created by the time element. For example, the leader may be able to alter an externally imposed time frame for the decision by negotiating an extension or even paying late fees, if necessary. If an extension is not possible, the leader may need to help the group eliminate the effects of time on the decision processes. This can be done by forcing attention to issues rather than time, encouraging dissension and confrontation, and scheduling special sessions to hear reports from outside experts that challenge prevailing views within the group.
JaniS presents, in both editions of his book, several recommendations for preventing 21
管理决策期末作业
见，以及有关的假设一致的沮丧。这里建议领导的类型，不是一个坐在后面，根本不让人知道她或他的首选解决方案。这种类型的领导者必须是一个需要所有成员说话了疑虑，问题和新信息。领导者必须知道其中一些问题是，哪些成员可能有严重的怀疑，这样的人能关注被要求说出来。这种类型的集团领导层的不只是分配魔鬼代言人的角色，走出的路。这实际上是领导者所发挥的作用还是可以确保别人做。与所需风格的领导者，以避免群体思维是不是放任自流的领导者或者非介入参与的领导者。这个领导者是活跃在指挥小组的活动，但不知道做一个首选的解决方案。该小组还必须制定和评估行动过程，但在强大的，要求领导谁迫使所有的替代品批判性评价的直接影响。
最后，这两个变量的组合表明，领导者需要帮助的成员，以避免由时间因素造成的问题。例如，领导者也许可以改变为通过谈判延长，甚至缴纳滞纳金，如果有必要的决定外部强加的时间框架。如果分机是不可能的，领导者可能需要帮助的群体消除时间对决策过程的影响。这可以通过强制关注的问题，而不是时间，鼓励分歧和对抗，并安排特别会议，听取工作要做从外部专家的挑战组内普遍的看法的报告。
詹尼斯介绍，在他的书中，防止群体思维发生了若干建议的两种版
22
管理决策期末作业
the occurrence of groupthink. These recommendations focus on the inclusion of outside experts in the decision-making process, all members taking the role of devil's advocate and critically appraising all alternative courses of action, and the leader not expressing a preferred solution. The revised groupthink framework suggests several new prescriptions that may be helpful in preventing further decision fiascoes similar to the decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger.
Much additional research is necessary to test the revised framework. First, Iaboratory research is needed to refine details of how time affects the development of groupthink. Second, the impact of various types of leadership style that may be appropriate for group decision-making situations needs to be investigated. Finally, research which tests the revised framework with real decision-making groups will be needed to refine new prescriptions for preventing groupthink. CONCLUSION
This paper has reviewed the basic tenets of groupthink and examined the decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger in January 1986. The report of the Presidential Commission provided enough evidence of the antecedent conditions, the symptoms, and the decision-making defects to support a conclusion that the decision to launch can be classified as a
groupthink situation. We have proposed, in addition, that other conditions may play important roles in the development of groupthink. These two variables, time and leadership style, are proposed as moderators of the relationship between group characteristics and groupthink symptoms. These two moderators lead to new prescriptions for the prevention of groupthink. Much additional research is needed to test the degree to which the revised framework can be
纳入外部专家，服用魔鬼代言人的作用和严格评价行动所有替代课程，领导不表达的最佳解决方案的所有成员。修订后的群体思维框架，提出了一些新的处方可能有助于防止进一步的决定fiascoes相似，以发射挑战者号航天飞机的决定。
多少额外的研究是必要的，以测试修改后的框架。首先， 研究需要改进的时间如何影响群体思维的发展细节。其次，需要进行调查各种类型的领导风格，可能是适当的群体决策情况的影响。最后，研究哪些测试修改后的框架与真正的决策群体，将需要改进新处方，以防止群体思维。
本。这些建议重点关注在决策过程中
23
管理决策期末作业
Time. Fixing NASA. June 9, 1986.
FLOWERS, M. L. A laboratory test of some implications of Jams's groupthink hypothesis.
本文综述了群体思维的基本原理
Joumal of Personaluy and Social Psychol08y, 1977, 35, 888-896.
和研究，推出了挑战者号航天飞机于
JANIS, I. L Wctims of groupthinlc Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
1986年1月决定。总统委员会的报告
JAMS, I. L. Groupthink (2nd ed., revised). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983.
提供了足够的证据的前提条件，症状，
LEAbfA, C. R. A partial test of Jams's groupthink model: Effects of group
以及决策的缺陷，以支持发起的决定
cohesiveness and
leader behavior on defective decision
可以被归类为一个结论
making. Joumal of Maturgemeru, 1985, 11, 5-17.
群体思维的局面。我们提出，除此之
MOORHEAD, G. Groupthink: Hypothesis in need of testing. Group and O,ganization
外，其他条件可在群体思维的发展起
Studies,
1982, 7 429-444.
着重要的作用。这两个变量，时间和
MOORHEAD, G., & MONTANARI, J. R. Empirical analysis of the groupthink phen-
领导风格，提出了作为群体特征和群
omenon. Human Relations, 1986, 39, 399-410.
体思维症状之间的关系的主持人。这
Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Accident. Washington, D.C.:
两个主持人导致新处方对于预防群体
July
1986.
思维。
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
GREGORY MOORHEAD is Associate
多需要更多的研究，以测试在何种程
Professor of Management at Arizona State University. He attended Texas Tech University
度上修改后的框架可以用来指导处方
and the University of Houston where he received a BS in Industrial Engineering and an
进行预防。
MBA and PhD in Organizational Behavior and Management. His research interests include
group decision making and integrative analysis of organization, group, job, and
person relationships.
RICHARD J. FERENCE is a doctoral 参考
used to guide prescriptions for prevention. REFERENCES COURTRIGHT,
COURTRIGHT ， JA团体迷思的实
J. A. A laboratory investigation of groupthink. Communications Monographs,
验室研究。通信专着，
1978, 45, 229-246.
结论
24
管理决策期末作业
1978 ， 45 ， 229-246 。 时间。固定美国宇航局。 1986年6月9日。
鲜花， ML的果酱的群体思维假说一些影响实验室测试。 Joumal Personaluy
和社会
1982年7 429-444 。
MOORHEAD ， G. ， ＆ MONTANARI的群体思维啉- JR的实证分析
omenon 。人际关系，1986 ， 39 ， 399-410 。
总统委员会在航天飞机事故报告。华盛顿特区：七月 1986 简历
GREGORY MOORHEAD是管理的亚利桑那州立大学副教授。他出席了美国德州理工大学和休斯敦的在那里他获得工业工程和工商管理学士学位及博士学位组织行为与管理大学。他的研究兴趣包括：群体决策和组织的综合分析，小组，工作，和人的关系。
理查德干扰是一个博士生在管理
Psychol08y ， 1977 ， 35 ， 888-896的。
JANIS ，为groupthinlc波士顿一L Wctims ：霍顿米夫林，1972。 果酱， I.L.的群体思维（第二版，修订版） 。台北：五南， 1983 。 LEAbfA ，华润的果酱的群体思维模型的部分测试：团体凝聚力的影响和 对有缺陷的决策领导者的行为。 Joumal Maturgemeru ，1985 ， 11 ， 5-17 。
MOORHEAD ， G.团体迷思：假设需要测试的。组和O ， ganization研究，
25