Editing Synergy (section)

==Descriptions and usages==
In the natural world, synergistic phenomena are ubiquitous, ranging from [[physics]] (for example, the different combinations of [[Quark|quarks]] that produce [[Proton|protons]] and [[Neutron|neutrons]]) to chemistry (a popular example is water, a compound of hydrogen and oxygen), to the cooperative interactions among the genes in [[Genome|genomes]], the division of labor in [[Bacterial growth|bacterial colonies]], the synergies of scale in [[Multicellular organism|multicellular organisms]], as well as the many different kinds of synergies produced by socially-organized groups, from [[Honey bee|honeybee]] colonies to wolf packs and human societies: compare [[stigmergy]], a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions that results in the [[self-assembly]] of [[complex system]]s. Even the tools and technologies that are widespread in the natural world represent important sources of synergistic effects. The tools that enabled early [[hominin]]s to become systematic big-game hunters is a primordial human example.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Corning PA |title=Nature's magic : synergy in evolution and the fate of humankind |date=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=New York |isbn=978-0-521-82547-4}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Corning PA |title=Holistic Darwinism : synergy, cybernetics, and the bioeconomics of evolution |date=2005 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago |isbn=978-0-226-11613-6}}</ref>
 
In the context of [[organizational behavior]], following the view that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its best individual member. These conclusions are derived from the studies conducted by Jay Hall on a number of laboratory-based group ranking and prediction tasks. He found that effective groups actively looked for the points in which they disagreed and in consequence encouraged conflicts amongst the participants in the early stages of the discussion. In contrast, the ineffective groups felt a need to establish a common view quickly, used simple decision making methods such as averaging, and focused on completing the task rather than on finding solutions they could agree on.<ref name = "Buchanan_1997">{{cite book | vauthors = Buchanan DA, Huczynski A |title=Organizational behaviour: an introduction text |date=1997 |publisher=Prentice Hall |location=London |isbn=978-0-13-207259-5 |edition=3rd}}</ref>{{rp|276}}
In a technical context, its meaning is a construct or collection of different elements working together to produce results not obtainable by any of the elements alone. The elements, or parts, can include people, hardware, software, facilities, policies, documents: all things required to produce system-level results. The value added by the system as a whole, beyond that contributed independently by the parts, is created primarily by the relationship among the parts, that is, how they are interconnected. In essence, a system constitutes a set of interrelated components working together with a common objective: fulfilling some designated need.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Blanchard BS |title=System engineering management |date=2004 |publisher=John Wiley |location=Hoboken, NJ |isbn=978-0-471-29176-3 |edition=3rd | page = 8 }}</ref>

If used in a business application, synergy means that teamwork will produce an overall better result than if each person within the group were working toward the same goal individually. However, the concept of group [[cohesion (social policy)|cohesion]] needs to be considered. Group cohesion is that property that is inferred from the number and strength of mutual positive attitudes among members of the group. As the group becomes more cohesive, its functioning is affected in a number of ways. First, the interactions and communication between members increase. Common goals, interests and small size all contribute to this. In addition, group member satisfaction increases as the group provides friendship and support against outside threats.<ref name = "Buchanan_1997" />{{rp|275}}

There are negative aspects of group cohesion that have an effect on group decision-making and hence on group effectiveness. There are two issues arising. The [[risky shift]] phenomenon is the tendency of a group to make decisions that are riskier than those that the group would have recommended individually. Group [[Polarization (politics)|Polarisation]] is when individuals in a group begin by taking a moderate stance on an issue regarding a common value and, after having discussed it, end up taking a more extreme stance.<ref name = "Buchanan_1997" />{{rp|280}}

A second, potential negative consequence of group cohesion is group think. Group think is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in cohesive group, when the members' striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to appraise realistically the alternative courses of action. Studying the events of several American policy "disasters" such as the failure to anticipate the Japanese [[attack on Pearl Harbor]] (1941) and the [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]] fiasco (1961), Irving Janis argued that they were due to the cohesive nature of the committees that made the relevant decisions.<ref name = "Buchanan_1997" />{{rp|283}}

That decisions made by committees lead to failure in a simple system is noted by Dr. Chris Elliot. His case study looked at [[IEEE-488]], an international standard set by the leading US standards body; it led to a failure of small automation systems using the IEEE-488 standard (which codified a proprietary communications standard [[HP-IB]]). But the external devices used for communication were made by two different companies, and the incompatibility between the external devices led to a financial loss for the company. He argues that systems will be safe only if they are designed, not if they emerge by chance.<ref>{{cite conference | vauthors = Elliot C | title = System safety and Law | conference = Proceedings of First International Conference on System Safety | publisher = Institution of Engineering and Technology | location = London | pages = 344–351 | date = 2006 }}</ref>
   
The idea of a systemic approach is endorsed by the [[United Kingdom]] [[Health and Safety Executive]]. The successful performance of the health and safety management depends upon the analyzing the causes of incidents and accidents and learning correct lessons from them. The idea is that all events (not just those causing injuries) represent failures in control, and present an opportunity for learning and improvement.<ref>{{cite book |title=Successful health and safety management. |date=2000 |publisher=UK Health and Safety Executive Books |location=Sudbury |isbn=978-0-7176-1276-5 |edition=[New]}}</ref> UK Health and Safety Executive, ''Successful health and safety management'' (1997): this book describes the principles and management practices, which provide the basis of effective health and safety management. It sets out the issues that need to be addressed, and can be used for developing improvement programs, self-audit, or self-assessment. Its message is that organizations must manage health and safety with the same degree of expertise and to the same standards as other core business activities, if they are to effectively control risks and prevent harm to people.

The term synergy was refined by [[R. Buckminster Fuller]], who analyzed some of its implications more fully<ref name = "Fuller_1982">{{cite book | vauthors = Fuller RB | title = Synergetics: Explorations in the geometry of thinking.  | date = 1982 | url =  http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/p0100.html | isbn = 978-0-02-065320-2 | publisher = Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller; Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc. | location = New York }} in collaboration with E. J. Applewhite. Introduction and contribution by Arthur L. Loeb.</ref> and coined the term [[Synergetics (Fuller)|synergetics]].<ref name = "Fuller_1982" />

* A dynamic state in which combined action is favored over the difference of individual component actions.
* Behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately, known as [[emergent behavior]].
* The cooperative action of two or more stimuli (or drugs), resulting in a different or greater response than that of the individual stimuli.