Intergroup Influences

This chapter really kind of tied it all together for me. I have been trying to get the last three paradoxes to crystallize, and for some reason they still seemed too...complex...contradictory....to visualize. However, I think I can now grasp some of the practical implications of the paradoxes in a more meaningful way.
In the context that interests me (schools and school systems), I can see the paradox of scarcity. This framing pattern goes on between schools, districts, and even departments within a single school. The discordance which can lead to group cohesion (p 190) is visible along the administrator vs. teacher lines. In extremely dysfunctional schools (where I am sad to say that I have worked), this leads to endless conflict between the two groups, with administrators blaming teachers for their unscrupulous use of resources and teachers blaming administrators for not supplying the resources necessary to meet the basic needs of their classrooms.
Smith and Berg pay homage to Howard Shein at the bottom of p. 191 when they mention conflicts in values and goals. Within a school (where it is assumed by outsiders that the goals are the same for teachers and administrators), these value conflicts persist. Commonly, I see it as a result of attempting to reconcile outside demands and priorities with the needs of students and personal meanings associated with their respective positions. This can also be explosive, since what results has the potential of becoming a culture war between the two camps. Sadly, who pays for this is the students.
Smith and Berg portray these external conflicts as being neutral - we can't say that any one group is more right or wrong to adhere to their values or decide what boundaries to give up or stand firm to. I am very interested in the practical applications of these paradoxes, now that they seem to be pointing toward practical applications (for awhile there I was questioning the relevance). I may be reading the rest of the book out of personal interest now, instead of out of respect for the subject.
Do you have any practical applications of the paradoxes? Can you imagine how they can be used or referenced if you were trying to resolve conflict within an organization?

Intelligent Decision Making

I found this section (chapter 9) valuable on many levels. For one, I started imaging how a board would effectively make decisions within an emerging non-profit - for example, which projects to create and which funders to involve and what evaluative tools to use, etc. I was seeing some of the working teams which I have been on which have been hasty to enact decision making processes and have then failed in implementation. "It is psychologically easier to adopt a quick solution strategy rather then to be patient, listen and search for collaborative solutions" (p. 161). I had never read or thought about the connection between decision making and implementation in this way before; and this definitely allowed me to think about how that connection plays out in the achievement of the goals (or the failure of implementation). Have you seen this happen in your workplace or in another setting?
I am fascinated by the concepts of group polarization and the Ringi Technique used for decision making. Group polarization could help explain extremism in many settings - critically important in understanding politics both locally and globally. This is obvious when someone who is not really religious becomes very religious within an outspoken religious group. It is also visible in cliques, when you have people enacting a stereotype to an extreme because that is the way to "fit in." Can you think of examples of group polarization? How do you think it has played out in history or is currently playing out in politics?
On the Ringi Technique, I tend to think that this could be a powerful way to avoid confrontation and to alleviate animosity when it comes to controversial issues. Also I am sure that it is not entirely anonymous, it would at least distance those members from each other who might otherwise be explosive in a group setting. However, I can also see that it might hinder the growth of the team in handling conflict. Do you see this as an avoidance strategy and if so, is it good for group development? Does it hinder the "process gain" (p. 148) which is the result of group decision making?