Introduction to knowledge management Teamwork. Team Production of Knowledge Wuchty et al. 2007, Science Over the span of 5 decades, no. of authors Almost.

Introduction to knowledge management

Teamwork

Team Production of KnowledgeWuchty et al. 2007, Science

• Over the span of 5 decades, no. of authors• Almost all fields increase in team size• Teams more highly cited• Effect is increasing over time• Especially for highly cited papers

04/02/2015 5

High Mutual DependenceLow Task Uncertainty

Low Mutual DependenceHigh Task Uncertainty

• Stable, single paradigm; admissible problems highly restricted • Formalized literature review with technical terms• Mainly journal articles• Relevant materials concentrated• Audience variety is low

• Multiple paradigms; uncertainty about intellectual priorities • Literature review based on choice of theory and discourse community; terms subject to multiple interpretations • Books, articles, press• Relevant materials diverse • Audience variety is high; reputation building include both colleagues and “lay” audience

Whitley, Richard. The Social and Intellectual Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Why deliberation might work?

• Groups as equivalent to their best members – If some of many members suffer from ignorance

or bias, other group member might correct them. “truth wins”

• Aggregation – The whole is equal to the sum of the parts

• Synergy and learning (conditions?) – The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Common knowledge effect

• Information held by all or most group member has the biggest influence on group judgments, for more than information held by one member or a few.

• Disproportionately little weight was given to valuable information held by one person or a few

• a group’s focus on shared information increases with the size of the group

• It was almost as likely for a shared item to be mentioned twice as it was for an unshared item to be mentioned at all.

Group polarization

• Following the group discussion, Individuals tend to make more extreme decision than when working along.

• Social comparison (Jerry Springer)During group discussion we compare our decision

with the decision of the others in the group Newell et al., p. 52

Confident and unified

• Group members tend to become a lot more confident about their judgments after speaking with one another

• Deliberation usually promotes uniformity by decreasing the range of views within groups

Promote a sense of legitimacy

• An appreciation, by many people, that they have be able to participant in the decision process

• Sometimes what matters most is that many minds accept the decision , not that the decision be correct.

Pragmatic boundary:Semantic boundary:Syntactic boundary:

Knowledge boundary

Knowledge transformationKnowledge translationKnowledge transfer

Knowledge process

Increasing Novelty

Context

Framework for managing knowledge across boundaries

Advantages of team decision-making

• Increased pool of knowledge to draw upon• Increased acceptance and commitment of the

selected decision • Wider range of perspectives taken into

consideration• Novice team members can learn from more

experienced team members (internalization)• Greater understanding of the rationale of the

selected decision

Disadvantages

• Conformity can stifle creativity • Groupthink can override individual judgment• Group polarization can lead to overly risky decision • Diffusion of responsibility leads individuals to avoid

feeling responsible • Satisficing so that the decision is acceptable rather

than optimum

Group polarization

• Following the group discussion, Individuals tend to make more extreme decision than when working along.

• Social comparison (Jerry Springer)During group discussion we compare our decision

with the decision of the others in the group Newell et al., p. 52

Possible causes

• Cohesiveness• Group isolation/insulation• Leader intimidation• An absence of decision-making procedures

Symptoms of groupthink

• Illusion of invulnerability • Collective rationalization • Illusion of morality • Shared stereotypes • Direct pressure • Self-censorship• Mind-guards• Illusion of unanimity

Steps for Minimizing Groupthink

• Group leader encourages thoughtfulness/ criticism• Group leader refrains from expressing own opinion and

views until group has considered all alternatives• Group leader encourages group members to gather

information from outside people• Group leader assigns devil’s advocate • Group leader holds second meeting for important

decisions

Team work: the social dimension

• Trust (see case study )– Companion – Competence – Commitment

• Social intelligence • Cognitive diversity

• “…although deliberating groups often fail to spread information, they are less likely to neglect unshared information if they believe that there is a demonstrably correct answer to the question they are trying to answer”

Diversity and group success

• Exposure to unfamiliar perspective fosters creativity

Real Social Network

Q and Broadway performance

Q and Broadway performance

Creative abrasion

• Focuses on knowledge building at the work-group level within an enterprise as a result of arguments that occur when people with diverse backgrounds, experiences and skill sets come together to work on real business problems

Empirical testing of brainstorming hypothesis

• Three conditions– No-criticism ground rules– Debate condition– No instruction

– Dissent stimulates new ideas because it encourages us to engage more fully with the work of others and to reassess our viewpoints

Debate > brainstorming > no instruction Debate condition generates nearly 20 percent more ideas

Disadvantages

• Conformity can stifle creativity • Groupthink can override individual judgment• Group polarization can lead to overly risky decision • Diffusion of responsibility leads individuals to avoid

feeling responsible • Satisficing so that the decision is acceptable rather

than optimum

Gigerenzer, p.77

• Everyone on the same plane• Start on equal footing• Daily social gathering • Shared success• Open doors

Groupthink

• The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view

Possible causes

• Cohesiveness• Group isolation/insulation• Leader intimidation• An absence of decision-making procedures

Symptoms of groupthink

• Illusion of invulnerability • Collective rationalization • Illusion of morality • Shared stereotypes • Direct pressure • Self-censorship• Mind-guards• Illusion of unanimity

Steps for Minimizing Groupthink

• Group leader encourages thoughtfulness/ criticism• Group leader refrains from expressing own opinion and

views until group has considered all alternatives• Group leader encourages group members to gather

information from outside people• Group leader assigns devil’s advocate • Group leader holds second meeting for important

decisions

Collective intelligence: what make a group smart?

Enabling context for knowledge creation

• Mutual trust• Active empathy• Access to help• Leniency in judgment • Courage

Teamwork: the social dimension

• Trust (see case study )– Companion – Competence – Commitment

• Social intelligence • Cognitive diversity– Avoid group think

Trust

• “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”

Advantages of team decision-making

• Increased pool of knowledge to draw upon• Increased acceptance and commitment of the

selected decision • Wider range of perspectives taken into

consideration• Novice team members can learn from more

experienced team members (internalization)• Greater understanding of the rationale of the

selected decision

Advantages of group learning

• 1. Disagreement• 2. Alternative• 3. Explanation• 4. Internalization • 5. Appropriation • 6. Shared load• 7. Regulation • 8. Synchronicity 林東清 p. 175-176

Benefits of group learning