In order for groups to function, the people that make them up have to operate in a sufficiently shared reality. The best one of those to operate in is, of course, actual reality. The more you deviat
In order for groups to function, the people that make them up have to operate in a sufficiently shared reality. The best one of those to operate in is, of course, actual reality. The more you deviat
In order for groups to function, the people that make them up have to operate in a sufficiently shared reality. The best one of those to operate in is, of course, actual reality. The more you deviate from that, the less cohesive your organization is.
The more you deviate from that, the less cohesive your organization is.
On the other hand, if people are invested in a particular shared reality, and your organization is the only one operating in that reality, it can make people more invested in the organization and thus more cohesive.
I notice that our overall organization is not on that real reality, but also not very well aligned. My team is on it's own reality, but well aligned. Needless to say, my team operates betrer rhan the overall organizatiin.
Sure, but the inherent problem is that everyone thinks they're in "actual reality". Very few people believe that they have an artificial world view. Thus the problem that you have to bring people into the discussion is that you need to convince them that their interpretation of reality is wrong, which humans are demonstrably bad at doing, and convince them that your reality is the correct one. Then you can begin the discussion on compromise. Much easier said than done
The more you deviate from that, the less cohesive your organization is.
It's surely the opposite. Just look at every cult.