Interesting article on why groups fail to share information effectively. I thought the article would claim that in some environments people horde information intentionally to benefit themselves in some way. But no, the point was that people typically withhold information which isn't already agreed to or well known by the group they're with
(?)
Seems bizarre, but the research they cite claims this is true.
That's just the way it works. Part of any social contract is that the members suppress any information which might disrupt the collective. This phenomenon can be observed in any collective you can imagine (family, business, state, church, etc.) -- the members of the group agree to maintain and observe taboos in order to "protect" the whole from what is perceived (whether incorrectly or not) as a potential disrupting influence.
ReplyDeleteAnd the net result of all this is resistance, in effect, to reality -- new information, inconvenient truth, and maintenance of the status quo are the consequences, which are what virtually all established organizations desire. Change is the mortal enemy of Power. On more of a macro scale, this process results in cycles of growth, rigidity, collapse, decay, rebuilding, etc.
The breaking point comes just as waters breach a levee -- at a critical moment the external force is too great for the internal walls to hold back, and the old is washed away in what seems like an instant, making way for new life to grow and build on a firmer foundation.
Nature of the universe, it seems :)
My experience working in large, enterprise environments operating from a "command-and-control" approach, is that people are really not free to speak up, or challenge assumptions. Some don't care to do so, others believe they can't change things and so why "rock the boat", and others are simply boss pleasers. That's why many hierarchial organizations stifle creativity and innovation. Fortunately, social media is breaking down the barriers and flattening organizations because "we are smarter than me". The best evidence that group think does work is Wikipedia where people are free to contribute based on their interests without fear of rebuke. (After all, isn't that one of the purposes of the the "Performance Review" - the keep workers in check?), I'm not arguing for tyrrany of the masses, but for honest, open discussions. In the Church, we agree that the seminary teacher should teach the doctrine of the Church and shouldn't be free to utter words that diminish faith. But IT approaches, best practices and technologies are not doctrine and so the same rules do not apply. The bottom line? Hire people who "enable" knowledge, and not "control" it. That is the promise of the Knowledge Workplace!
ReplyDelete