The level of communication within the group is always thought to be a positive thing. Sometimes it is not so. In most of the cases, the problem with group decision is to be overaffected by group dynamics. When some people have prejudice or bias towards some matter, group thinking is formed by these people. Owners of the new ideas who should be independent from the group to be effective, give up their correct ideas and join the group thinking, and the new ideas are shadowed if not totally abandoned. To solve this problem, groups need the voice of dissenter. However organizations tend to get rid of blockers or dissenters because they can be seen as difficult or argumentative, they should not. These people play an important role and good decision making.
In an environment where there are dissenters, the new ideas are more resistant to be swayed by group thinking even in the paradoxial case where the dissenter criticises the new idea, but in a way which is different from the group.
Mehmet Zirek
I personally believe that a good communication leads to good innovations.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
I agree with you that "good" communication is necessary but what is meant by communication which can be harmful for innovation is the group dynamics in the absence of dissenters. In this case communication between the group and the individual works in a way to supress new ideas and innovations, therefore it is not "good communication"
ReplyDeleteDear sir
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but I can't totally agree with you.Sometimes an individual can mistakenly consider him/herself innovative, creative, extraordinary.By the time I learned that it is important to say what you think but it does not mean it will be accepted at once or accepted at all.Our carnal self(nefis)sometimes overcomes the right way and we need somebody to remind us about it.If our new idea deserves living it will be realized somehow one day.
Hi Olga, thanks for your contribution to this discussion. However the negative effect on the creativity by the group mentioned in the blog does not necessarily come from individual's being criticised by the group. On the contrary it points out the necessity of dissenters within the group who prevents individuals intimidated by the general beliefs and conformity of the group giving up their own ideas. This even works in the case where dissenter has nothing to do with the new idea but opposing the group for another reason showing individuals that they can say their different opinions thus breaking the group dynamics' erosive effect on creativity.
ReplyDelete