In the video, Mariano Sigman and Dan Ariely seek to answer the question, does talking to each other, as part of groups, help or hinder collective decision making? Sigman assumes that when people make decisions in groups, the outcome is always not appropriate or recommended. He continues to indicate that research has shown that independent reasoning in groups helps towards increasing the ability of crowds or groups to remain wise. Through a study of groups that Sigman and Ariely conducted while giving talks, Sigman argues that gatherings are considered as being wiser if they debated in smaller groups that seek to foster a more thoughtful exchange of information. However, this raises the question of how groups can reach a consensus that would be most appropriate based on the discussions between individuals in smaller groups.
From the social experiments that Sigman and Ariely conduct, they can take note of the fact that averaging the answers from small groups was much more effective when compared to averaging the only answers given. Sigman and Ariely engage in a similar study in Vancouver, Canada by providing those in attendance with two ethical dilemmas and allowing the individuals to consider their answers. The individuals were then expected to engage in a discussion in a group of three to reach a consensus on a group answer. Sigman and Ariely can come with the concept of the robust average, which allows for the persons in a group to find the percentage of answers that are considered as being reasonable while ignoring those that cannot be close or possible. The use of a robust standard takes into account that each of the individual answers is used in finding an acceptable group answer.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Reflection
Problem Identification and Solving
When evaluating the course material, as well as, listening to the TED Talk by Mariano Sigman and Dan Ariely, one can take note of the fact that persons find themselves in a position where they are expected to solve problems regularly. Butterfield (2012), in Part 1: Identifying and Defining Problems, reflects on the fact that the issues are a crucial part of any business, as persons spend a significant amount of their time while in the business environment trying to solve a wide array of problems. It is essential to consider the fact that indeed, problems may sometimes be frustrating and are likely to cause substantial difficulties. Learning how to solve problems is critical, as it seeks to create an avenue through which individuals can capitalize on their overall capacities towards ensuring that they analyze the issues and develop realistic and straightforward solutions.
That means that people are often expected to come up with creative ways allowing them to handle problems irrespective of their complex nature. Butterfield (2012) goes ahead to point out that creative thinker and successful professionals understand the importance of having to view challenges as opportunities that would allow them to grow their businesses, services, or tasks. I see problems as a way for me to learn through experience, which creates the need for me to ensure that I am in a position allowing them to solve any underlying problems effectively. By viewing problems as opportunities, one can use them as a critical tool enabling them to recognize and conform to their individual goals.
Butterfield (2012), in Part 2: Solving the Problem, extends the debate towards ensuring that one can develop a solution after the identification and in-depth exploration of the problem while reflecting on its causes and related issues. An inference that can be made from this position is that the ability for one to solve a problem effectively would depend solely on the level of understanding that one would have on the issue at hand. In my view, I consider the need to understand a problem as being somewhat useful considering that it creates a strategic approach through which to determine the impacts that a specific solution is likely to have in solving the issue. My attitude is defined by the fact that trying to find a solution to a problem that one does not understand is likely to result in the adoption of non-effective solutions that may not be of any value.
Group Thinking and Decision Making
Butterfield (2012), in Part 4: Group Decision Making and Problem Solving, evaluates the dynamics associated with instances where persons focus much of their attention on work as part of groups while ensuring that the decision making process is reflective of the individual opinions presented by each member of the group. When going through this discussion, one cannot help but think of the TED Talk by Mariano Sigman and Dan Ariely on how groups operate concerning their dynamics and how they would able to perform effectively. In my analysis of the views by Sigman and Ariely in comparison to those by Butterfield, I must say that I took note of several critical differences concerning how they each seek to highlight the values placed on the group dynamics.
In evaluating 13 Ways to Make Your Workspace More Creative, Stevenson (2017) highlights the need for having to install a communal table or gathering space that would be considered as a general assembly for all persons working within the workplace. When I was going through the views by Butterfield, I took note of the fact that this idea would be viable towards establishing a front through which persons can reason together as a group. The intention of having a communal table is to ensure that persons can gather around the table with the sole focus being towards ensuring that they engage and interact. That means that it becomes much more comfortable for groups to work as teams based on their interactions, which can be achieved by having to ensure that the setting is accommodative of the group dynamic.
However, this raises the question of whether the groups would be in a position allowing them to make decisions that are reflective of the best possible outcomes while considering the conclusions by Sigman and Ariely although it may be doubtful whether groups are indeed capable of actualizing on their overall capacities by considering the individual opinions and views, what must be regarded as is the fact that groups can only function if the members work towards a common objective, in my view, that can be considered as a crucial part of the robust average concept developed by Sigman and Ariely taking into account that the individual group members build on their different capacities to boost the group dynamics.
Working as a Team
One of the mentalities held within the business environment is that groups can automatically work as a team, which often leads to adverse outcomes, as this is not the case. The ability for groups to work as teams is not automatic. Instead, this is a mentality that must be created between the individual members of the group, which would be of great value towards enhancing their overall capacity to work together towards a common goal or objective. I have personally been involved in somewhat effective teams, which has provided me with a first-hand understanding of the importance of having to establish a team mentality among the individual members of the group. That has led to my view on the fact that the inability for a group to work in unison serves as a recipe for ultimate failure.
Brown (2019) evaluates how Google and IDEO, which are some of the most successful multinational corporations, can foster an environment for creativity as a way of ensuring that their employees work with the group mentality at hand. From the examination of the two companies, Brown (2019) takes note of the fact that the companies have been able to create an avenue through which to support psychological safety, which, in turn, promotes efficiency within innovative teams. In my personal view, I would define psychological safety as seeking to ensure that each member of the team is psychologically and mentally prepared to work as part of the team rather than having an individualistic perception. By promoting psychological safety, individual members experience the desire to work as part of the group, considering that it helps bring out their creativity.
Crainer (2015), who evaluates IDEO as a company of focus, also examines some of the critical expectations that can be achieved in the event that teams are able to work much more effectively as part of a team, especially relating to the fact that companies find themselves in need for employees to work as team. From my evaluation of this article, I was able to note that the ability for teams to achieve some of their objectives is driven by the need to create a shift in the way an individual think. That means that individual ought to change their approach towards groups with the aim being towards ensuring that they become much more accommodative of others. The outcome is that this will be of great in ensuring that groups can operate as teams for the best possible results. The article expounds on the need for having to ensure that organizations embrace a sense of diversity while reflecting on the basic expectations that push individuals towards improving their performance.
Prediction
Based on my understanding of the course material, as well as, listening to the TED Talk by Mariano Sigman and Dan Ariely, I predict that the society would be in a better position towards making acceptable decisions by creating the group mentality. Sigman and Ariely point to the fact that some of the critical decisions that that robust average may help in the making may touch on political leadership to help in solving some of the essential problems that the world is facing. In my view, I believe that this is an approach for the future, in the sense that, people will recognize their strengths when working as part of groups in a bid to ensuring that they become much more informed in the decisions that they make.
References
Brown, T. (2019). This is the Way Google & IDEO Foster Creativity . Retrieved from https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/how-google-fosters-creativity-innovation
Butterfield, J. (2012). Problem-Solving and Decision Making: Illustrated Course Guides . New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Crainer, S. (2015). Ideologically speaking. Retrieved from https://www.london.edu/lbsr/ideologically-speaking
Stevenson, N. (2017). 13 Ways to Make Your Workspace More Creative . Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/blog/13-ways-to-make-your-workspace-more-creative
