A642.5.3.RB - Making Smart Groups

A642.5.3.RB - Making Smart Groups

Reflect on the Sunstein and Hastie article.

Can these concepts help promote innovation within an organization?

Sunstein and Hastie make the point that when a group of people is brought together to solve a problem, something happens to the individual within the dynamics of the group. People tend to listen to the leader of the group for direction and approval, they concur with a popular idea even if they don’t fully agree, and [t]hey focus on what everybody knows already—and thus don’t take into account critical information that only one or a few people have (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014). The individual is taken out by the larger voice of the group.

Sunstein and Hastie suggest the following six concepts to help avoid this group-think situation:

·         Silence the leader – once the leader of a group has given their opinion, it can sway the entire energy of the group.

·         “Prime” critical thinking – provide a thought-provoking environment for critical and creative thinking to take place. When a leader structures the activity around information disclosure, they open the path for an open minded conversation.

·         Reward group success – structuring groups with rewarding group success and identification with the group’s success is more likely to ensure that people will say what they know.

·         Assign roles – when everyone knows what each expertise each person brings to the table, this information can be tapped into for group success.

·         Appoint a devil’s advocate – if everyone agrees on something without debate or dissent, then that decision is only half of the potential decision. Even if a group comes to the same consensus after discussion, it still makes the understanding of the solution more robust and therefore more meaningful. Assigning someone to ask productive dissenting questions is imperative to good group decision making.

·         Establish contrarian teams – this goes back to debate as well, Sunstein and Hastie describe having “Red teams” those that try to defeat the primary team in a simulated mission, and those that construct the strongest possible case against a proposal or a plan. This allows for a broader understanding of what they are trying to accomplish.

All six of these concepts lean to the idea that we should ensure that groups aggregate the information their members actually have and don’t let faulty informational signals and reputational pressures get in the way (2014).

How do they compare and contrast with the other readings from this module?

            The six concepts above can all work in tandem with the other readings from this module. It’s all been about creating innovative thinking skills and making a smarter team by giving their problem solving processes structure and guidance. Whether Canfield and Smith’s mind mapping or 6-3-5 brainstorming ideas or and of the strategies hat McKeown described are used, they are all about structuring our creative thinking skills around better problem solving and successful innovation.

            For example, the concept of silencing the leader can be seen in the brainstorming techniques from Canfield & Smith. In their 6-3-5 brainstorming, there are groups of people who have to come up with three ideas in five minutes. This removes the leader from the equation and allows the smaller groups to have their own conversation and brainstorm.

            The mind-mapping is an example of “priming” the creative thinking by having a leader start with the group’s established goals in the center and allowing the group to go up to the board and start relating individual ideas and solutions to that overall goal. While the leader is involved, their role is less commanding and more about guiding the group.

Can they be combined into a process that can be used to promote innovation across the entire organization?

            The concepts that Sunstein and Hastie discussed in their article, McKeown’s strategies, and Canfield & Smith’s creative thinking techniques should all be used together in a meaningful way to promote innovation across an entire organization. Naturally enough, people learn from one another; the problem is that groups often go wrong when some members receive incorrect signals from other members (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014). In every organization resides many different personalities and backgrounds, life experiences and passions. As leaders, utilizing the techniques, strategies, and concepts we’ve learned this week allows us a plethora of ways to pull genius out of groups. It’s when these ideas aren’t used that there are wasteful processes put in place and a disgruntled workforce that has to contend with the fallout from poorly thought out solutions to problems.

References

Canfield. J. & Smith, G. (2011). Imagine: Ideation skills for improvement and innovation today. Holland, MI: Black Lake Press.

McKeown, M. (2014). The innovation book: How to manage ideas and execution for outstanding results. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, United Kingdom. Pearson Education Limited.

Sunstein, C.R. & Hastie, R. (2014). Making dumb groups smarter. Harvard Business Review. 92.12.91-98.