Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Lesson 6: Teams and information exchange - Coggle Diagram
Lesson 6: Teams and information exchange
Prisoner's dilemma: common strategies
Tit for tat (direct reciprocity)
Reputation (indirect reciprocity)
Always cooperate
Altruism
Always defect
Building trust
Similarity
Reciprocity
Schmoozing: small talk
Physical presence
Self disclosure
Mere exposure effect
Teams: opportunities and challenges
Can be beneficial because they bring informational diversity
we often fail to utilise informational diversity because of: issues with team formation and information exchange
issues may be viewed as irresponsible and unethical
Team composition
Team formation
instead of harnessing the benefits of diverse teams, we tend to select team members based on:
similarity
Proximity
Benefits and costs of social diversity
homogenous teams
Higher group cohesion
Lower turnover
Higher performance for simple, routine tasks
Diverse teams
High performance and innovation
Conflict and coordination problems
Psychological barriers
social diversity and task performance
substantial evidence to support the view that diversity (in age, tenure, ethnicity) typically has negative effects on social integration, conflict, satisfaction, and commitment.”
Psychological barriers to maximise social diversity
Social categorisation
Stereotypes
Stereotype content model
Social cognition dimensions: warmth and competence
Individual vs groups perceptions
Individual: Halo effect
Groups: Groups: negative correlation → many groups judged as high on one and low on the other
Stereotype threats
Implicit and explicit prejudice
Information exchange
Common knowledge effect
Spend more time discussing the information they have in common, instead of what is not discussed
Main causes
Unshared information is judged as less compelling; common knowledge builds relationship/trust
Conformity pressures and fear of social exhaustion
Group members are “anchored by” initial preferences
Group members seek confirmatory evidence
Group polarisation
Tendency to make more extreme (either risky or cautious) decisions when in a group than when alone
Causes
Confirmation bias (e.g. when an argument is raised, similar to arguments brought up)
Common knowledge effect
Dependence on one expert
Desire to fit in; conformity pressures
Effective strategies to maximise benefits of informational diversity
Leaders must set up the right process, structure, norms and goals
Determine team member’s knowledge and expertise
Suspend initial judgement; wait for evidence
Don’t rely solely on the majority rule principle
Include someone who explicitly signals differences
Creates psychological safety (e.g. familiarity) and norms for disagreements (e.g. devil's advocate)
Benefit of dissent
When you create dissent, it results in better decisions