When it operates efficiently, a group’s decision making will nearly always outperform the ability of any one of its members working on their own. This is especially the case if the group is formed of diverse members. One problem: groups rarely work efficiently.
A new meta-analysis (pdf) of 72 studies, involving 4,795 groups and over 17,000 individuals has shown that groups tend to spend most of their time discussing the information shared by members, which is therefore redundant, rather than discussing information known only to one or a minority of members. This is important because those groups that do share unique information tend to make better decisions.
“What this suggests is that teams who talk more amongst themselves aren’t necessarily sharing useful information. Therefore, they’re not actually coming to a better result. Rather, it’s more important what the teams are talking about, than how much they are talking,” said Mesmer-Magnus.
Sometimes the cognitive thinking of behaving in a group can get in the way. It would go a little something like this: ‘kk in a group got to give my view, let other’s speak, raise points, work as a team etc then that will all lead to results, progress and if there are arguments, got to do this this and this’.
If there is too much attention given to how we are behaving in a group, the main objective can be lost. A bit like being in a train of thought with yourself and a minute later, forgetting what we went into our heads for in the first place.
I hate cognitive thinking sometimes because it can be illogical and lead to contradictions of self. People sometimes think Psychology is about taking steps to achieve results (taking step A will lead to step B, and taking step B will lead to step C), and I guess not just Psychology, but anything we try to figure out. That is just how the logical part of our brains think (‘left brain’…?). Cognitive thinking is not the same as rational thinking guys, remember that. Brains act on purpose, not on logic
Working as a group works best in practice. When you practice working as a group more, I guess that your mind can relax about ‘how to behave’ (assuming you’ve got good at that part…) and can start thinking about the content you are actually giving out. Bit like learning the basics behind drawing before you can really give a go at expressing your craft, I guess.
I’m skeptical about this. Immediately a problem springs to mind, one of authenticity or accuracy.
Lets say there’s a group of 10 people, none of whom have any real knowledge of a certain topic, let’s say boating. However, in the group there is a person who is convinced they know far more about boating than everyone else and begins to preach to the group, mostly filling in for facts with assumptions, correctly or incorrectly. I’d wager we all know of a few people who do this, for whatever reason.
That person, given free reign to produce all the bull they want, will in fact make that group less efficient at making boat-based decisions, not more.
Provided all the groups members stick to what they know, the message of the research may ring true, but while there are people working counter to the group’s net knowledge I don’t think that would be true.
@ Simon;
“mostly filling in for facts with assumptions, correctly or incorrectly. I’d wager we all know of a few people who do this, for whatever reason.”
This is a wager you would win. These folks are the bane of my exhistance! They just don’t listen to reason >.<
I don’t think they mean the entire group listening to only one or two people. I think they mean each and every person in the group contributing knowledge not shared by the rest of the group, so that everyone gains new stuff, instead of each person in the group just discussing only things that the rest of the group already knows. So with the boating example, everyone in the group already knows what a sail is, so they ignore that. One person knows about rudders, one knows about hulls, one knows about, um, oars… I can’t think of any more bits of boat, but you get the idea.
Presumably each person would still have to present evidence for their unique knowledge. The day is saved for critical thinking!
Also, check out that guy’s name. Mesmer-Magnus. Really? Seriously? Wow. I wish I had an awesome name like that.
Simon – this reminds me a bit of Chuck Jones’ description of brainstorming sessions at Termite Towers… the nickname given to the animation department at Warner Bros during the golden era of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck etc.
At the start of the meeting all ideas were pitched regardless of quality, and everyone was obliged to do their best to massage them into ideas that had potential, but the way the bad ones were routed out was when the other members of the team found it impossible to make anything worthwhile out of them and they hit a dead end. It’s kind of a Darwinian model where the cream of the ideas rise to the top and the rest die a natural death.
It’s probably slightly different if you’re relying on people for factual information, but it’s an interesting take on it. Whether or not they were just wasting valuable time is a moot point, but Jones reckoned it scored several palpable hits.
You only have to watch The Apprentice to see this is true.
Ehehehe … yeah .. meetings proof this … that groups babble a lot without any use (well, it serves the ones that talk ofcourse ..).
I’m not into groups, I always get more out of it when I work it solo .. ehehe …
Groups … humanity … unite … oh, it could have been such a beautifull world … so intelligent … so civilized … but hey …
I wonder if this is the same kind of thing about assumptions that occurs on so many levels with everyone. In a group, individuals behave like group members, because that’s what they feel they’re supposed to do. Group members discuss group topics. I’ve used this to my advantage at University in group discussions lead by students.
Last night my shihtzu was laying on my foot to keep it warm. Due to nerve damage in my foot, I only felt a fraction of the warmth had it been my other foot. About an hour later, I was still enjoying the warmth of my pup, only to see him walk back into the room from the kitchen. My foot instantly felt cold when I looked down.
I was behaving as though the warm shihtzu had been there all along. I actually felt warmth.
Groups are just like that, I think.
All the groups iv’e worked with, have allways just elected me as the group leader(consiously or subconsiously) I guess I just allways take control of whatever the situation is ( because of how i carry myself they as a group probably think i must know what im talking about). I think when the leader of the group is more in control the group seems to remain on task, and they put in their knowledge in as they proceed through whatever they’re doing. I think its easier to persuade a group of people to do something once you’ve established a bond, then it is to persuade a single person because the individuals in the group dont want to seem distant or boring to the other group members. Iv’e done this before to secretly persuade the group to a final conclusion to get moving on a team project or something. it is better though to have many brains giving ideas, then it is to have one single person trying to come up with something on their own.
I really dont think the pup example really works with this, but ill think about it some more.
Gary – Is this shihtzu foot therapy in any way related to Shiatzu massage? You could market that idea!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiatsu_massage
This is pretty interesting. Group discussions are a wonderful minefield of behaviour patterns – sometimes positive, sometimes deceptively positive, and sometimes obviously negative.
I think when people start talking together in groups, the less structured the group-time is, the more likely they are to slip into comfort zones where they reassure each other by getting into conversations which are inefficient, but subtly supportive and more to do with forming personal bonds than forging ahead with the problem at hand. More rigidly organised groups – for example, those who have a chairperson calling on people in turn and keeping the meeting on-topic – may be more focused but also lose some of the sense of freedom and brainstorming which can produce really wonderful, brilliant but unconventional ideas.
The issue seems to be: how can a group get the best out of individual members while still operating as a dynamic force? I’ve read a pretty interesting solution which splits the time into individual brainstorming followed by a discussion of ideas. I think this is a pretty good start. In general, I think the success of a group depends on how much clarity, intelligence, and direction goes into structuring the group-time.
oh and I liked the shitzu comparison! It’s like getting lost in the comfort zone of hazy chatter and imagining that everything’s progressing just fine, only to suddenly wake up and realise your meeting has still left you all out in the cold!