Surowiecki On Small Groups

The article “Committees, Juries, and Teams: The Columbia Disaster and How Small Groups Can Be Made to Work” by James Surowiecki begins by explaining the twenty-eight flight of the space shuttle Columbia. Columbia was hit by a large piece of foam which has been broken off by the left bipod area of the shuttle's external fuel tank. Surowiecki focuses on a narrow strip of the disaster which is how the small group decided that “nothing could be done”(Surowiecki, 475) about the hit and how their decision as a small group to come to that conclusion was wrong. Surowiecki begins by explaining all the different ways that working in a small group can be a bad thing. He puts in slight teasers of how a group could effectively work well like describing …show more content…
He intentionally explains these negative aspects in order to show us how the positive things are needed, an example of a positive being the ability for dissents to speak up. So the question is “are the benefits of small groups worth the risk?” The first thing that should be done is to explain what these benefits are. The fact that small groups can be both faster and more accurate when it comes to problem solving is the main purpose for them. Now to answer the question you'd have to consider all the negatives, for example, “… small groups can make very bad decisions, because influence is more direct and immediate and small-group judgments tend to be more volatile and extreme”(Surowiecki, 474)). The reasons continue to group polarization which makes groups with similar ideals go to extremes of their initial thoughts. This causes extreme solutions which aren't always the best solutions. This relating to social comparison and how when a majority beliefs shift to one side of an argument all the dissenters tend to shift in that direction so they can stay relative to the majority. I believe that small groups don't have to be a risk though, because there are proven ways to create a specific small group with diversity, leaders giving everyone a chance to speak, challenging dissenting thoughts, putting people with different views together (which …show more content…
I believe Surowiecki defines the role of collaboration as something that, in the right way, can benefit everyone. Group Polarization is very risky, yet it happens all the time within all groups. When you put a bunch of people in a room that all have the same views on a certain subject, the solutions for problems given to this group will be extremely in favor of the views they support and also extremely not in favor in opposite views. As one of the studies Surowiecki reveals concludes, “If a group was made up of people who were generally risk averse, discussion would make the group even more cautious, while groups of risk takers found themselves advocating riskier positions.”(Surowiecki, 479) Knowing any type of problem, you need to be able to have a very neutral solution, primarily speaking towards social policies. Solutions should never have too much risk, but they should also never have too much caution as caution has proven to get no results(stock market). Surowiecki uses this conflict within this relationship to define collaboration as something that needs to be done in a specific way, this specific way primarily be a nonpolarized group. He explains that groups that are polarized tend to be way too extreme in their policies and decision, so extreme he states, “The obvious temptation is to do away with or at least minimize the role that small groups play in