Want to Be More Creative? Conflict Is the Answer | Inc.com
Geege Schuman stashed this in Psychology
"Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" is a great idiom. (So is "Too many chefs spoil the soup," but for a slightly different reason.)
"Ronay and his team first conducted a manipulation to put some subjects into a high-power mindset and others into a low-power mindset. Some subjects were asked to describe a time when they held power over another individual. Others were told to write about a situation in which someone had power over them. A control group wrote about a trip to the supermarket.
"The subjects were then divided into three types of groups: all high-power, all low-power, and a mix of high-power, low-power, and control subjects. The members of each group played a collaborative word game designed to show how well they worked together. It turned out that the mixed-power groups were nearly twice as productive as the high-power groups in any task that required collaboration."
That is not intuitive at all.
Mixed power groups were twice as productive as high power groups.
I'm curious if it has to do with vision-alignment. Two high-powers mostly will not have the same vision, so to work towards the same goal is not the same as the mixed-power group, just a thought.
That makes sense. They'll spend most of their time arguing instead of making progress.
Whereas a single vision gives everyone a goal to shoot for, and they can make progress right away.
What if there is not an expectation? I think, over time, things could envelop naturally because both parties learn from each other and develop their own paths, that eventually become interdependent. Eventually, their visions could naturally align without forcing growth, but allowing environment to organically develop value. Too risky?!