tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post1164002866874669915..comments2024-03-27T19:53:53.708-06:00Comments on growing changing learning creating: Democratizing diagnostic protocolsTom Haskinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12658791778134826289noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post-68006108092599413362009-07-22T11:36:26.710-06:002009-07-22T11:36:26.710-06:00Thanks for taking these thoughts further! When the...Thanks for taking these thoughts further! When there's a disconnect between process and outcomes, I would expect to find a contrived context. The participants would be "going through the motions" rather than pursuing outcomes deliberately because there appeared to be no genuine relevance, significance or subsequent use for them personally. High quality group processes resemble playing games well for tribal feelings of bonding, solidarity and cohesion. For the quality of process and outcomes to be connected, I suspect the factors I explored in <a href="http://growchangelearn.blogspot.com/2009/07/co-producing-comprehension.html" rel="nofollow">today's post </a> would have to come into play.<br /><br />Thanks also for the added red flag. Besides relating to the consolidation of power, group think might also tie into disengagement. Participants may feel sufficiently indifferent, distanced and disheartened to silence their dissent. <br /><br />The distinction between cognitive and emotional conflict is new to me, though it makes sense that emotional is disruptive and cognitive can be constructive. The costly pursuit of "no hard feelings" could easily compromise the outcomes and pass up opportunities where people could "agreed to disagree".Tom Haskinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12658791778134826289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5117005533318160902.post-60067311164899287362009-07-22T09:09:45.461-06:002009-07-22T09:09:45.461-06:00I have only skimmed your postings as I am busy wit...I have only skimmed your postings as I am busy with other work right now. However, (and you might have already addressed this--in which case I apologize), it is important to distinguish between group comprehension and group "learning". Also between group processes and group product. In a paper I coauthored, we found that codes of conduct made group work processes more efficient with less group problems, but not necessarily creating better outcomes.<br /><br />I would also add one more "red flag". Lack of conflict and/or conflict resolution processes. Often this is an indication of "group think" which results in a decrease in the checking and exploration of multiple ideas. It is also related to the first red flag "consolidation of power." Often when power has been consolidated, groups do not want to have "conflict" to mess up the power structure. Jehn, et al's research found that emotional conflict was disruptive whereas cognitive conflict was constructive in group processes.V Yonkershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11910904367068063554noreply@blogger.com