[music] So when you watch a piece of video like that, what do you think?

What was it that stopped that group from behaving, from getting to a place where they wanted to? Well, a number of things, right? There's the idea that no topic is off limits. They seemed to adhere to some of the brainstorm rules. They were writing down lots of ideas. They were not saying you can't say this, or you can't say that, but somehow they still didn't get somewhere. And we want to think through ,as we go through the rest of this piece and the rest of this week, why is it that a group like this has this kind of problem? So, what are the cultural constraints in the group? So, one thing I want to think about is group membership, like what is it to be a part of a group? And where does, what, you know, why do we join groups? And what does it mean to be part of a group? We're going to talk about making sense. When groups talk to each other, when you're part of a group, how you do you know what it is you're doing together, and how that makes sense? When I ask you to do the animal sound, and you can see from my students doing the animal sound exercise, it sort of doesn't make sense. And that makes it hard to do it. And groups need to have that sense, that kind of sense or meaning. And then also, there's tradition and taboos. There's certain things that we've learned, or we've been taught not to do that you can't say. Or certain groups have ideas about, you know, you can't do this or you can't do that. Or you, you must always do it this certain way. And those are the kind of traditions and taboos that can get in the way, in and of themselves. So, when we're thinking about group roles, that is what roles could you play in a group to actually help the group support task performance. So remember, we want to be valued in a group. We want to do things that are positive for

a group. And so, we have to adopt these roles in a group. And so, how do we help the group that way? Groups will succeed if we can have reliable roles for task performance, that is if we can help people know how to fit into the group. If we adopt roles that support information transfer, that if I act in a way that allows information to come into the group, because remember, we are about information processing. And so, how can I do that? Also, if we had dropped roles that create value in the group, and so again, how is that we do these things that create value? Here's some example roles in at least in American culture. We have sort of some of these sayings for these roles, like he's a smart guy or a wise guy. A wise guy is a person who's always making jokes. Devil's advocate is a person that says, well, I'm not really saying that won't work, but what if we think about if it didn't work? And we call that the devil's advocate or the fire starter, there are all kinds of roles like this. And so, think about what are the effect of those roles on people in a group. It's important to have the roles. But we also have to recognize that if we're putting the person in the scapegoat role, then we are actually making them not feel psychologically safe, that they're not feeling in a safe place. So, groups have this thing called cohesion. Cohesion is what holds a group together. And we can have cohesion if there's a controlled composition of the group, that is, if there are certain ones of us that we know who we are, and we're a part of something if we share goals. If we're all trying to go in the same direction, it's much more likely that the group will stay cohesive, will stay together. If we have sort of compatible values, if we talk about the things that we like together instead of the things that are different that we dislike. So, the more that we share about the things we like, the more likely we are to stay together as a group. Also, to the extent that we collaborate and cooperate with each other, that's

something that adds a lot to our group. Now, the problem with this thing called cohesion of keeping the group together. So, you want the group together, right? Because remember, we need the information processing that we need more people helping. The problem with cohesion is on the other side. That if we control the group composition, we're more likely to let people in to the group once they are like us, people that we like and that reduces the information variety. But if we let people in who are different from us or we don't like, that's problematic as well. We want people who share the goals that we share that have the same goals, that sort, sort think about things in the same way. Yes, but what happens is then we reduce the willingness of people to look for other things that have different perspectives on the problem that we have. And so, remember that we talked about different problem solving perspectives is an important thing asserting compatible values. Yes, absolutely that's important. And at the same time, it reduces different problem solving strategies, different ways that people might approach the problem. And then, cooperation and collaboration. To be cooperative and collaborative, collaborative, we may actually reduce task conflict. Now, we're talking about task conflict, the good kind of conflict. We may able to reduce task conflict just to be cooperative, just to be collaborative. So, we don't create conflict in a group. And so this power of cohesion, cohesion makes this one half. This sense of, of, of feeling good, of feeling sharing lots of values, sharing behaviors, understanding each other. But at the same time, it'd be problematic and in these ways for the innovation of the group, for the coming up with ideas, for the looking at the world in a different way. Making sense. So, this is sort of the second of these group culture constraints. So making sense, that groups want us to actually make sense. If we're doing something together, how do we know what we're doing? What is it we're doing?

We will use shared languages. We try to talk to each other in shared ways. We may also use similar problem solving methods. And that, sort of, that, that kind of sharing helps us as well. That creates meaning. Because if you're doing it this way and I'm doing it this way, if I get a little bit confused, then I can just look and see that you're doing the exact same thing. Shared goal definitions. If we both think of the same thing that, as being valuable, as being the same goal, then we can collaborate and work, work towards that thing in a way, in this way. Now, at the same time, obviously you can see that this may reduce the amount of different things we consider. Different possibilities that we consider. And so, those things again, they bring us together. They bring us into a more small place. Decision making. When you have a group, groups come together to make decisions. And in, think about from decision making in an organization. You have to present information that you're going to make a decision-based on. You're going to discuss the options, insights that people had through the discussion of the information. You're going to have to assess the potential actions that take place, and then how do you select the planned action. And so, if we sort of step through this, how we present ideas can be really different in different ways. Is the way we present ideas, I email everything out before the meeting and then you respond to it, you know, at home in the evening when you're answering your email, or do we do it in session? Do I do it verbally? Do I do it with PowerPoint? Do I do it with a printed handout? All those things actually matter. All those things change how it is that ideas are perceived. How do we discuss the options, you know? Do we say, we have to reach a consensus here, or do we say you know, let's think of all the things, all the ideas that we all think are good. Words to do that we say, let's think of every idea and then decide later what we think are good or not good. And so, this discussion of options, how it

happens, we often don't talk about in groups. It's just a normative thing. It's a part of our culture but we don't talk about it. But, how we discuss options has a great deal of matters a great deal. Let me put it that way. How do we make decisions? You know, do we do it by, you know, by prototyping? Do we do it by thinking? Do we just do it by saying, hey boss, what do you think? Or do we do it by having the boss come and say, this is what we're going to do without actually asking us what we think about it? And so, again, if I am in a group, all of these different practices affect the outcome. And so, you can imagine, hopefully, that some of these are really bad for innovation, if they go badly. That is, if we don't think carefully about how we present information, we're going to end up in a place where people aren't using the information in a way that helps, that drives us to better innovation. Now, let's talk about traditions and taboos, a third of these culture constraints. So, the kind of taboos, I've observed some. I was doing some research, at one point, and I noticed there were some groups of people who were really, they were sort of struggling with, or, we're left brainers. Like we always, everything gets calculated, like don't ever bring us in your opinion, don't ever bring us your feeling. We are not interested in that. We are left brain people and that's how we decide things. And then I'm also been in groups that say, you know, we're right brain. We've created an advertising agency and we're right brains, not care which your analysis says like this is a good thing to do because I feel, oh my God. Now obviously, one is not better than the other and one is not right all time. Just as in the individual level we saw that we want to have both in play, but may be that the groups culture pushes them one way. That people, when they are in the left, they'll feel comfortable, they feel safe, they feel good, they feel like this is how

we do things, or same with the right brain mode. And if you're stuck in the one or the other, that becomes problematic. And that's when you're sort of stopping innovation, when you're not helping innovation along. The norms in groups, and I've been talking about a number of norms here. But, the thing about these norms in groups, how will we be together? What is it that we 're going to do to be together? What does it mean to be a predictable member of this group? You know, if people act very unpredictably, it's very difficult to have them in a group. How we build trust, how we build respect. What values do we share and how do we share those values about the activities that we do, and the outcomes that those activities lead to? And then, also, when we you know, our, our ideas about risk. When I say, oh, that's really risky, that may make you sort of say, oh, yeah. If he thinks it's risky and I think it's risky, then it must be really risky, then we end up being much less risk-seeking. And it may just have to do with the emotion in the group more than it has to do with the actual objective amount of risk associated with that option, or that proposal with that, with that way of doing things. And so, the norms in groups, how do groups know what to do? You know, you may find yourself doing interesting things just because that's what it means to be a part of that group. And people get to the point where they just start doing what a group does without really even questioning after a certain point. They're actually doing, are doing the same thing. Now, the sense making, this sort of making sense in a group for being predictable and all that, there are unintended consequences. These are really good things to make sense in groups, but they tend to be good for efficiency, for routine outcomes, for reliability, for all those things. I've underlined a few words here that suggest that some of the things about being predictable, seeking respect, sharing values, being compatible, all those things are not innovation.

They are not going to bring us to a new place from the innovation perspective. At the same time, we know that if we don't have these things, we don't have a group. And so, that's the tension that we're balancing here, is to say how do we keep the group together enough from an emotion perspective. And at the same time, get the information processing done that needs to be done. So, the group culture constraints, group membership, being part of a cohesive group, making sense, doing things that everything in the group says, yes, that make sense to us, that's, that's how we do things. And then, also, the traditions and taboos of the group. Making sure that those don't get in the way. And we're going to actually look at the, overcoming these kind of constraints in groups in a moment. So, how do we overcome culture constraints? What is it that we can do that helps us get past these kind of constraints? I've talked about the constraints of cohesion and those things. Well, one thing is you can start by mixing up the group membership. You know, get people different than yourselves. We tend to want people who we can talk to who speak the same language, who think the same way, who make us feel comfortable. But that's not where new ideas are going to come from, especially in the early stages of a life. That's where you need to get sort of different kinds of people in there. And sometimes, that's really difficult because as you're in the early stages, you're still trying to understand what you're doing, and it's hard if people are perceiving it from very different perspectives. But, from an information processing perspective, that's a really good thing. Another thing is, think of what you're doing is exploring and that your exploring to learn. But if you want to learn, that's one thing, if you want to produce, that's a different thing. And so, think about what you're doing as learning. And then, sort of buffer yourself. If your organization has a culture of efficiency, of production, of all those

things, you need to build a buffer between your group and that part of your organization. And maybe you do it by doing something off site, maybe you do it by doing something after hours. You know, there's sort of different ways that you might pursue that seeking something different. The other thing would be to prol, prize some new problem solving methods. The group sometimes get enameled with the way that they solve problems just the way individuals do. And so, it could be they say challenge with how can we do this differently, like we always solve it this certain way. How could we do it differently? And take that as a challenge to something differently, not just do it better or more creative but to do it differently and see where that can take you. And also think about who are some other kinds of people in the world who could do this project or do this thing better than us. Maybe we're not the best people to solve this kind of problem. Maybe we need some help from someone outside. Groups will want to believe they're powerful and believe they make sense, and believe they're doing the right thing. But sometimes, we may not have the skills on board and our group to be able to get something done. And we have to be able to put down our ego long enough to be able to go get the information form where it is and bring it into our group. So, these are some of the ways we can overcome these cultural constraints in groups.