More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Started reading
October 12, 2019
When a group is clear about what it does and why, other groups can more easily engage and relate to the group.
working to create shared purpose is the very essence of clarifying and prioritizing the collective interests of the group over individual interests.
If a group can bring individual and collective purposes into alignment, a lot of this time and energy can be devoted to finding ways to better cooperate rather than to control individualism.
It’s very easy for a group to mistake the how and the what of what it does for its purpose—that is, the why it does what it does.
That's why they have to be treated separately: Vision (WHAT), Purpose (WHY), Misson (HOW).
members will need to live the purpose—by
Simon Sinek considers why uncertain times require certainty of purpose.
https://consulting.ey.com/simon-sinek-considers-uncertain-times-require-certainty-purpose/
fairness, or the equitable distribution of contributions and benefits (core design principle 2), is key to having a highly functioning group.
sensitivity to fairness arises early in human development, around the same time as language acquisition.
distributive justice in the research literature, is about how resources are distributed among people—for
distributive fairness,
procedural fairness.
The specific details of what we call equity are not something we’re born with; equity is culturally constructed in our language, our values, and our social comparisons.
once the ideas of distributive and procedural fairness, and the differences between equity, equality, and need-based norms of fairness, are introduced to groups, they are usually in a much better position to enrich their discussions of what really matters in relation to principle 2, and to link issues of fairness to their shared purpose.
Over time everybody learns to just put up with the unfairness.
Power Distance increases.
When people can speak assertively but not aggressively in the context of the needs of others, they are building equity.
The former is more about understanding how the other thinks and feels,
COOL Perspective Taking
whereas the latter, what sometimes is called empathic concern, is more about feeling the other’s pain
WARM Perspective Taking.
Although caring for others is an important aspect of prosociality, it must be situated within a broader understanding of what is good for the system.
Being able to momentarily tolerate situations that looked as though they were working against his interests in the service of a greater good allowed more prosocial behavior to occur.
this was not compromise; rather, it was a conscious shift from reacting to small, immediate issues to consciously responding to larger, longer-term values and goals.
After Action Reviews
Retrospectives.
and there are large inequities of power,
Some members lapsed into inaction due to disagreement and conflict, whereas other disengaged.
the twin perils of excessive centralization of authority on the one hand, and the paralysis of disorganized and inefficient decision making on the other.
studies of the importance of self-determination have shown that it’s a basic human
Inclusive decision making helps group members develop crucial skills—not just the technical skills of learning about the issues and approaches to solving them, but also the psychological skills of listening, perspective taking, self-regulating, making room for other points of view, and committing to action even when it’s scary.
One reason why co-ownership is important beyond the financials.
power hierarchies can have enormous negative effects upon engagement.
Cooperation simply didn’t happen as often in the groups with asymmetrical power as it did in the groups where power was balanced.
Cooperative groups make better decisions than individuals.
firms that are owned by their workers outperform their peers,
group members are more likely to support leaders who involve them in decision making
are more likely to stay in groups led by democratic leaders as oppose...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Inclusive decision-making systems are more resilient over time because they are less dependent upon individuals and their specific preferences.
We need to plan for “difficult” people and have systems that can manage them.
choosing for oneself can itself be stressful if one lacks information, when all the alternatives have downsides, or when choice involves conflict.
people are happier when they have more control over their lives than when they do not.
Though choosing can be hard, not being able to choo...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
in some circumstances hierarchies work to create greater cooperation and coordination.
the self-interest of leaders sustains hierarchies.
authority figures are often afraid that they’ll lose power if they try more inclusive decision making.
alternatives to command and control, such as consultation and consensus-based decision making, have downsides that make them unattractive to both leaders and followers.
power over others can sometimes have more subtle effects that perpetuate command-and-control styles of leadership.
hierarchies are well evolved for stable and relatively simple contexts that a single leader can understand, but they do not work well with the complex relationships, distributed information, and rapid change that are the hallmarks of the societies we now live in.
Shifting this balance of power is an ongoing process of conversation rather than a one-off, one-time change.
“tell and sell”
Psychological flexibility can help people sit with the discomfort of disagreements and bold decisions,20 be less attached to defending their positions and identity,21 and feel empowered to readily step up to make decisions to influence their own circumstances.
Sam Kaner calls the divergent phase the “groan zone,” as people start to feel uncomfortable with the uncertainty
The matrix is a fantastic tool for clarifying and integrating individual and collective goals and values.
K2K suggests four key questions to discern if a group is making a good decision,
the importance of “loyal dissent,” which they saw as dissent within a broader framework of cooperation and in the interests of the collective rather than self-interest.
