How does one categorize what a successful group is and what it isn t? Which factors and

Transcription

1 1 Professor Berrigan English 110 March 8, 2015 How does one categorize what a successful group is and what it isn t? Which factors and characteristics must these groups possess in order to be considered successful? In James Surowiecki's essay Committees, Juries, and Teams: The Columbia Disaster and How Small Groups Can Be Made to Work and Marshall Poe s The Hive we see both authors views on what makes successful groups. By looking at these author s essays we can study specific methods and determine what works best for any group. During further investigation of these authors works I am able to form my own opinions based of their conclusions. Surowiecki and Poe both deliberate whether a group needs what author James Surowiecki calls cognitive diversity. When further discerning what James Surowiecki's view is on cognitive diversity, we see that he values group members with different backgrounds and demographics. Within his essay, Surowiecki claims, that matters because in small groups diversity of opinion is the single best guarantee that the group will reap benefits from the face to face discussion (478). I agree that cognitive diversity plays a role in a group s success. However, I disagree with Surowiecki s argument that all groups must stress the idea of cognitive diversity in order to become a successful unit. In this argument I side with Poe s cathedral model, in which the group stresses upon a more centralized authority dictating the who, what, when, where, and how. In terms of the usage of Poe s bazaar model within a given group, I credit it with being the preeminent element leading to a group s failure.

2 2 I believe groups that run themselves in close connection with a bazaar model may never be able to discern which ideas and opinions are the most optimal. For example, Suroweicki s essay points out the problems juries can cause. Juries function in close connection with a bazaar model and in his essay. Suroweicki shows how the mission management team for the Columbia functioned like a jury, which consequently led to extensive problems. Suroweicki recognizes, evidence based juries don t even take a vote until after they ve spent some time talking over the case, sifting through the evidence, and explicitly contemplating alternative explanations...verdict based juries, by contrast, see their mission as reaching a decision as quickly and decisively as possible...they take a vote before any discussion, and debate after that tends to concentrate on getting those who don t agree to agree..the MMT approach was practically, though not intentionally, verdict based (475). Even though Poe voices his distaste for cathedral modeled groups, I would have to disagree. I believe it is imperative that there is a single power or leader within each group. Without a leader there is no clear cut way of extracting the best ideas that will get you the results your group desires. Many times members of any group have insecurities when it comes to sharing their ideas. These group members who tend to feel uncomfortable sharing their opinions with the rest of the group can sometimes have valuable insights and more fitting ideas than the ideas being proposed. Suroweicki recognizes this and presents the term groupthink to better illustrate the recurring issues groups encounter. In his essay Suroweicki mentions, one of the real dangers that small groups face is emphasizing consensus over dissent..the extreme version of this is groupthink that Irving Janis described in his account of the planning of the Bay of Pigs, where

3 3 the members of the group become so identified with the group that the possibility of dissent seems practically unthinkable (476). I would side with Suroweicki in his argument. Groupthink within a group can prohibit a group s ability to become successful. I too conclude that when a group encounters groupthink, they can very easily rule out member s valued opinions or worse miss out a member s insightful idea that leads to success. Poe would view cathedral models in a negative light. He feels that, flaming is not the best way to go about things. Poe believes group modeled ideas that entail centralized powers can lead to things like flaming, which he thinks can be harmful, but does acknowledge it may still happen no matter what. Poe suggests, openness fit not only Wales s idea of objectivism, with its emphasis on reason and rejection of force, but also his mild personality...he does not like to fight...he would rather suffer fools in silence, waiting for them to talk themselves out, than confront them (350). This direct quote clearly exemplifies Poe s views on the cathedral models ideology of centralized power. Poe would prefer a bazaar modeled environment. Groups do need opinions and ideas from each group member, however groups that are shaped like a bazaar model will run into trouble when discerning which opinion or idea is the most optimal. Both Surowiecki and Poe believe that there are certain errors and mistakes that can cause groups to fail. An example of a mistake or error that could lead to failure is brought up in Surowiecki's essay with the idea of group polarization. The authors ponder whether group polarization will lead to a group s success or their failure. We see that Surowiecki provides us with his opinion on group polarization within his essay, Committees, Juries, and Teams: The Columbia Disaster and How Small Groups Can Be Made to Work. Surowiecki believes that

4 4 group polarization will lead to their ultimate failure at one point or another. Within his essay Surowiecki uses the term group polarization to demonstrate how groups resort to more extreme positions because of social comparison. Surowiecki suggests that group polarization is a mistake and he goes on to propose, usually when we think of deliberation, we imagine that it s a kind of recipe for rationality and moderation, and assume that the more people talk about an issue, the less likely they will be to adopt extreme positions...but evidence from juries and three decades of experimental studies suggest that much of the time, the opposite is true (478). I agree with Surowiecki in the sense that the idea of group polarization can ultimately lead to a group s failure. Surowiecki uses the example of the Bay of Pigs, as evidence that just because we have one opinion does not mean it is the right one. President Kennedy lacked confidence in his military advisors and decided to make a decision that was continually thought to have very little chance of success by his advisors. Ultimately Kennedy made the ill advised decision that unfortunately turned out to be very unsuccessful and led to many deaths, as well as numerous soldiers being captured. President Kennedy operated his decision making by following a cathedral modeled and failed to acknowledge his military advisors opinions, which led to failure. I side with Surowiecki because group polarization can lead to what Surowiecki refers to as confirmation bias. When Surowiecki provides us with the term confirmation bias, he is referring to the active seeking of information or facts that supports a pre established viewpoint, causing a fractured approach within the group. Confirmation bias can hinder a group from becoming successful. Just like what Surowiecki writes about in his essay, confirmation bias can put group members in a closed state of mind not allowing them to see others views.

5 5 Poe and Surowiecki provide us with sufficient evidence that supports their opinions on which factors lead to the success of a group. However, in terms of Surowiecki's view on cognitive diversity, I would disagree that cognitive diversity will serve as a decisive role in which determines the success of a group. I believe that groups must stress the importance of running their group closely in line with Poe s cathedral model. Without a centralized authority a group can fail to correctly select the most optimal ideas and views best suited for the group. I agree with Surowiecki in his views on group polarization, groupthink, and confirmation bias. I believe it is imperative that groups have clear cut leaders who can make the best choices and only then can a group be on the path to success. By allowing group polarization, groupthink, and confirmation bias to enter into a group, you are ultimately allowing a group to be set up for failure at some point whether it is early on or down the road.

6 6 Bibliography: 1. Poe, Marshall. The Hive, Emerging Contemporary Readings for Writers, Barclay Barrios. Boston:Bedford/St. Martins. Print 2. Surowiecki, James. Committees, Juries, and Teams: The Columbia Disaster and How Small Groups Can Be Made to Work, Emerging Contemporary Readings for Writers, Barclay Barrios. Boston:Bedford/St. Martins. Print