This isn’t about law or entrepreneurship, but of productive conflict in groups. As we start considering the formation of groups for the final projects, I thought it might be useful! 🙂
If Your Team Agrees on Everything, Working Together Is Pointless
This isn’t about law or entrepreneurship, but of productive conflict in groups. As we start considering the formation of groups for the final projects, I thought it might be useful! 🙂
If Your Team Agrees on Everything, Working Together Is Pointless
I thought this article made several valid points and I agree with it’s overall message that conflict is not always bad or destructive but it can actually be productive and given the right circumstances it should be encouraged and not feared. I thought the overall message of this article was interesting when thought of on a macro level, because it seems to cut in the opposite direction of the trend that seems to be sweeping across college campuses across the nation. Places that traditionally have encouraged intellectual debate and utilized the constructive nature of bringing together groups of people with conflicting ideas and opinions have now become the least welcoming of opposing or conflicting ideas. The fact that the college students on the campus that started the “Free Speech Movement” recently rioted and destroyed parts of their own campus to protest and lead to the cancellation a speech with conflicting ideas is extremely alarming (regardless of how despicable one may think the speakers views are). It seems that the generation of current college students are unwilling to engage in the sort of constructive conflict and discussion that is encouraged in this article at least with regards to social issues. I am curious to see how the next wave of entrepreneurs will be able to handle conflict within teams when they join the real world and the workforce. Will they accept conflicting ideas in that setting better than they have on a macro level, or will teams be filled like-minded individuals in an effort to create a form of “safe space” to shield them from the internal and constructive conflict within the team that this article seems to encourage?
I think that productive conflict is at the heart of entrepreneurial success and economies. There needs to be people on the team or the government to advocate for all sides of an issue. I think there is definitely a fine line between group think on projects as well as the opposite problem of not having a common goal.
The article points out that when everyone thinks the same then you can expect the same product as before. I agree with Patrick’s earlier comment that the next wave of entrepreneurs should be taught to have constructive conflict. One of the ways to do this is to educate about the role of devil’s advocate.
Forbes article, 3 Key Design Factors For an Effective Devil’s Advocate by Chunka Mai lays out 3 key points on how to incorporate the devil’s advocate position in order to make entrepreneurs, groups, and economies more successful.
I think that he highlights the important points that can be incorporated in the design of how we teach entrepreneurship.
1. You have to commit to an explicit process rather than hope that tough questions will spontaneously emerge.
2. The goal of devil’s advocacy must be framed correctly.
3. The devil’s advocate needs to function constructively throughout the innovation process rather than be an inquisition at the end.
These points also relate the video we watched in class because having more devil’s advocates about the benefits/costs to aid Africa could help Africa solve the perception problem that countries need and should be sending aid that is not benefiting the African economy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2014/04/23/3-keys-to-an-effective-devils-advocate/#38f45f0773df
I’ll echo my classmates above in agreeing that this article makes valid points regarding the importance of conflict to the process of collaborating. There’s certainly room for growth where collaborators take the approach of building on one another’s ideas – “incremental thinking”, as the article calls it. Society seems to be averse to the kind of collaboration encouraged by the article. I agree that disagreement, while not always the most flattering or complimentary, is necessary to the development of successful ideas and products. For one, innovators should be ready, willing and able to defend their idea outside of the boardroom – by disagreeing, or poking holes in concepts, colleagues provide one another with the opportunity to bolster their idea. Or, if gaps/holes truly do exist within a concept, it is the responsibility of teammates to expose these flaws to one another. Constructive criticism in the short term bodes well for long term success.
I think we could all afford to get a little more comfortable with constructive criticism. Hopefully we can work towards removing the emotions that arise when someone criticizes our idea (better yet, become more apt to provide constructive criticism to our peers).