The Effectiveness of Communication within Teams: Harmony Between the Individual and the Group. Introduction: The Quest for Excellence in Complexity

In a world where each change brings uncertainty and every decision is burdened with the imperfection of knowledge, teams have become the primary structure for solving problems. But does collective effort always lead to better solutions than the intuition of the individual? Over the years, I have delved into this delicate balance – between individual genius and the power of the group – particularly in the context of innovative tasks.

Teamwork has become a philosophical and practical challenge for me: How can we extract solutions from a team that transcend the sum of their individual contributions? And why, despite the best intentions, do groups so often generate mediocrity rather than breakthroughs? In my search for answers, I have drawn from my experiences working with talented individuals, observing teams that faltered under the weight of their own expectations, and research on the Common Preference for Shared Information Effect (CPSI), which sheds light on the key mechanisms of group dynamics.

The Strength and Weakness of Groups: Introducing the CPSI Effect

Research on the CPSI effect, initiated by Garold Stasser and William Titus in the 1980s, reveals fundamental dynamics of communication in teams. According to their findings, groups have a natural tendency to:

1. Focus on shared information (SI) – that which is known by all group members.
2. Undervalue or ignore unique information (UI) – knowledge available only to specific individuals within the group.

This asymmetry leads to a paradox: decision-making teams often select inferior solutions compared to what would be possible if unique information were fully integrated.

Why does this happen?

The reasons for this are multi-faceted:

Shared information (SI):

• Perceived reliability: When everyone knows something, it is often regarded as safer, more reliable, and less risky.
• Consensus building: Discussing shared information strengthens the group's sense of unity and common purpose, making decisions easier to agree on.
• Control: Focusing on SI helps the group avoid the risks associated with the unknown and maintain a sense of control over the process.

Unique information (UI):

• Difficulty in introducing: UI is often harder to bring into discussion, as it requires individuals to be assertive and convinced of the value of their own perspective.
• Devaluation: Unique information is often seen as less valuable, especially when it doesn’t align with the prevailing consensus or challenges the status quo.
• Lack of support: UI often gets ignored unless it is backed by data or authoritative validation, creating an environment where new, potentially groundbreaking ideas are suppressed.

This phenomenon of shared information bias in group decision-making is one of the key areas where teams often underperform. The CPSI effect highlights how groups fail to leverage the diversity of knowledge available to them, favoring safer, conventional solutions instead of innovative ones.

Practical Challenges: Working with Genius in the Corporate Maze

My journey toward understanding this dynamic has been filled with contrasts. I once worked with a young, talented UI/UX designer who brought revolutionary ideas to the corporate team – visions that could change the way we communicate with machines. His ideas were fresh, full of innovation and daring. However, when confronted with corporate mechanisms – resistance to change, the Concorde effect ("we’ve already invested so much in the current solution"), and the preference for SI – his contributions were reduced to incremental improvements.

I watched as:

• The team defended its previous achievements, treating them like "children" that needed nurturing and protection.
• Experts questioned new ideas by referring to data that supported existing solutions, rather than exploring alternatives.
• The conversation focused on "safe" topics, and the UI/UX innovations went unnoticed.

This experience taught me that even the greatest talent will not survive in a group unless we create space for unique perspectives to be fully explored. The challenge lies not just in presenting new ideas but in creating a structure where those ideas can be heard, evaluated, and integrated into the decision-making process.

Conscious Transformation: How We Transformed Our Group Dynamics

After years of mistakes and successes, I realized that the effectiveness of teamwork depends on several key elements:

Structure Before Discussion:

• Preparation: Before meetings, each team member was asked to write down their unique insights and perspectives. This allowed individuals to reflect without the pressure of immediate group influence.
• Prioritization: Each person ranked alternative solutions from best to worst before any group discussion took place, ensuring a focus on the value of each contribution.

Facilitation and Communication:

• Norms Equality of Voice: We made sure that everyone had the opportunity to speak. Facilitators moderated the discussion to ensure that unique information (UI) was acknowledged.
• Neutrality: During the early stages of discussions, we forbade judgments – every proposal was treated as potentially valuable, regardless of its alignment with the majority.

Experimentation:

Rather than choosing one path, we simultaneously developed two alternatives.

This approach allowed us to:

• Reduce the risk of selecting the wrong option.
• Collect more data to better assess the value of each approach.

Psychological Safety

• One of the key steps was creating an environment where team members felt free to share their unique information (UI). This was particularly crucial in the presence of authorities, whose opinions could suppress the diversity of perspectives. We made sure that every team member felt that their contribution – whether it was a novel idea or an unpopular opinion – was valued and respected.

Conclusion: The Philosophy of Teamwork in the Age of Complexity

Effective communication in teams is not just a technique – it is an art. It requires an understanding of human fears, desires, and power dynamics. Research on the CPSI effect shows that the group’s natural tendency to prioritize shared information can be both a strength and a hindrance. The key to success lies in consciously designing group processes that:

• Extract unique perspectives: This is essential for innovation and problem-solving in complex environments.
• Reduce the dominance of leaders and experts: Too often, authority figures unintentionally create an environment where others feel their voices are less valuable.
• Allow for experimentation and embrace uncertainty: Teams that experiment, test, and accept the possibility of failure are more likely to find breakthrough solutions.

As I reflect on these experiences, I realize that teamwork is only effective when it is consciously managed. In a world where nearly every project requires a breakthrough, the ability to facilitate, build trust, and create space for diversity has become invaluable.

In the words of Aristotle: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." To achieve this, we must learn to listen – both to what is known and to what has yet to be said. The art of communication, therefore, is not simply in transmitting ideas, but in cultivating an environment where all voices, especially those of the most innovative, can be heard and integrated into the collective solution.

?