WHAT IS HOMOGENEITY?
Homogeneity describes the situation in which a group, team or department has developed ONE particular way of thinking, acting and doing
Other words to describe homogeneity would be groupthink, consensus, simple-mindedness, conformity, where one particular knowledge domain is allowed to
dominate in any group or organisation.
Homogeneity is defined as the dominance of a single domain, independent of the number of other available domains within a group. What often happens is that if a group - for one reason or another - suddenly seems to "cave in" to homogeneity, and the dominance of a single domain, even for just a minute, homogeneity can and often will be re-created instantly. The ball will start rolling downhill and has to be pushed all the way up again.
The surprise is not that homogeneity often prevails in groups, since conformity is a well-known and well-studied aspect of group constructs (Gross, 1992; Sabini, 1992). What is often surprising however, is the overwhelming degree to which group engaged in such homogeneity- construction, given the fact that 1) every group studied was "designed for diversity", and 2) the task given was to be specifically innovative; hence, to benefit from the available knowledge domains in the group, i.e. their diversity.
Often what happens is that something prevents a group from activating the multiple knowledgeable identity domains available, resulting in the construction of a seemingly homogenous group with only one salient, very dominating regime of competences. Such a group seems to be engaging primarily in the construction of homogeneity (maintaining the salient regime of competences), even if they may very well have the outward characteristics of group diversity; resulting in the innovation practice being close to non-innovative.
Homogeneity is defined as the dominance of a single domain, independent of the number of other available domains within a group. What often happens is that if a group - for one reason or another - suddenly seems to "cave in" to homogeneity, and the dominance of a single domain, even for just a minute, homogeneity can and often will be re-created instantly. The ball will start rolling downhill and has to be pushed all the way up again.
The surprise is not that homogeneity often prevails in groups, since conformity is a well-known and well-studied aspect of group constructs (Gross, 1992; Sabini, 1992). What is often surprising however, is the overwhelming degree to which group engaged in such homogeneity- construction, given the fact that 1) every group studied was "designed for diversity", and 2) the task given was to be specifically innovative; hence, to benefit from the available knowledge domains in the group, i.e. their diversity.
Often what happens is that something prevents a group from activating the multiple knowledgeable identity domains available, resulting in the construction of a seemingly homogenous group with only one salient, very dominating regime of competences. Such a group seems to be engaging primarily in the construction of homogeneity (maintaining the salient regime of competences), even if they may very well have the outward characteristics of group diversity; resulting in the innovation practice being close to non-innovative.