Foundations of Group Behavior peer responses
Please include a statistic or statistics respond to the posts of two (2) classmates. The responses should be minimum of 60 words per response, which is well written, crafted, and thought provoking (thoughtful). Please cite your scholarly source(s) within the paragraph(s). Provide in-text citations and References.
A. Researchers and pundits both argue that the wisdom of crowds is extremely fragile. The two specific circumstances include when people are influenced by the opinion of others which means they lose their independence and when opinions are distorted by cognitive biases which highlights the strong political views held by a group (Becker & Edwards, 2019).
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Foundations of Group Behavior peer responses completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
B. New research zeros in and concludes that the wisdom of crowds is more robust than previously thought, it can even withstand the groupthink of similar-minded people. The caveat is that In order for the wisdom of crowds to retain its accuracy for making predictions, every member of the group must be given an equal voice, without any one person dominating. As the research discovered, the pattern of social influence within groups that is, who talks to whom and when is the key determinant of the crowd’s accuracy in making predictions (Becker & Edwards, 2019).
C. My thoughts as a leader after reading this article is that it can be sometimes difficult to lead a group of people if you have many influencers apart of that group. These select individuals can be a deciding factor in many of group discussions especially if individuals in the group find them more influencing. Now, I am the most influential I sort of have complete power of the group because most of them may mimic what ever I do but then sometimes that is not the case. Individuals may find someone else who they see as more opinionated and may want to follow them. That then makes the job as a leader more difficult. We're not always going to be in situations where we can choose if we would like to be apart of centralized or decentralized networks. So based on that the job of leadership because challenging but it is something that can be fixed and work out for the better.
References:
Boyatzis, R. (n.d.). Weatherhead School of Management | Weatherhead School at … Retrieved February 21, 2022, from https://weatherhead.case.edu/departments/organizational-behavior/workingPapers/WP%2099-6.pdf
What do researchers and pundits argue (in the HBR article) about the wisdom of crowds? What are the two specific circumstances, based on the article?
Experts and pundits have argued that the wisdom of crowds is exceedingly unstable, contrary to the belief that when groups of people make predictions on their own their errors are not connected and it leads to more accurate forecasts. There are two specific situations where crowds are seemingly fragile: when people are affected by the ideas of others and when opinions are skewed by cognitive biases (Becker & Edwards, 2019).
What does new research zero in on and conclude? What is the caveat?
New research zeros in on the assumptions of researchers and conclude that there is more to it and the wisdom of crowds is more resilient than previously assumed. It can even endure the groupthink of like-minded individuals. The caveat is that every person in the group must be given an equal voice in order for the wisdom of the crowds to keep its accuracy in making forecasts (Becker & Edwards, 2019).
What are your thoughts as a leader from reading the article? OR, Can you connect this to a workplace situation and provide analysis?
As a leader, it is my job to understand the benefits that come from crowdsourcing as well as the negatives. I think it is also important to look at different techniques that groups can adapt to make the outcome a more beneficial one. Most of the groups we use in the decision-making process are Interacting groups (Robbins and Judge, 2017). The problem with interacting groups is they push for individuals to conform to their own point of view rather than embracing individual opinions. According to Robbins and Judge (2017), brainstorming and the nominal group approach can help alleviate some of the difficulties associated with the standard interactive group and it is important for leaders to consider these factors. Furthermore, research has indicated that the nominal group technique produces better outcomes than the brainstorming technique in general. Through the nominal technique, It stifles debate and interaction during the decision-making process. So even though all members of the group are together, they function autonomously so that individuality is not affected (Robbins and Judge, 2017).
Outside of work, I have been in situations where one strong personality can affect the decisions of everyone else in the group. When one person stands up and they are confident about what they are saying, regardless of it being fact or cap, people will follow. I think it is also important to take into account difference personalities when putting groups together. Maybe that is the wrong way to go about it but I would rather put groups of people together who I know will work out efficiently and effectively rather than chancing the outcome.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational behavior. Pearson Education Limited.
Becker, J., & Smith, E. N. (2021, September 17). Research: For crowdsourcing to work, everyone needs an equal voice. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2019/07/research-for-crowdsourcing-to-work-everyone-needs-an-equal-voice
