Eureka Task (Lorge et al, 1958)
Jealous husbands• 3 married couples have to cross the
river but there is only 1 boat….• Rules of the task:
– Only men can row the boat– Wives can’t cross with another man unless
the husband is present
Lorge et al’s findings…
• Individuals– only 3/21 solved problem
• Groups– 3/5 solved problem
Why????
Overview
• Group processes– Steiner’s typology of task
• Brainstorming• Processes involved in productivity
Additive tasks Disjunctive tasks
Objectives
• Give an account of Steiner’s typology of tasks
• Specify the effects of group size on additive tasks
• Specify the effects of group size on disjunctive tasks
• Review evidence on the effectiveness of ‘brainstorming’ as a technique for maximising group performance.
Theory of group performance Theoretical framework (Steiner, 1972)
• Performance is dependant upon 3 classes of variables:
1. Task demands
2. Resources
3. Process
Task demands
• The procedures necessary to perform a task.– Task demands as ‘building plans’
• house being built• materials needed• tools to use• order of work• Management of total process
Group Processes
• What the group does– ‘Process’ refers to the actual steps taken when
confronted with a task– The extent that the total sequence of behaviours
corresponds to the pattern demanded by the task
Formula:-
Actual productivity = potential productivity
(minus losses due to faulty processes)
Faulty Processes
What aspects of group behaviour result in loss of production due to faulty processes?
• Either poor supply of resources? – (low potential productivity)
• Or processes fail to meet demands of task?
• Or both!
Two forms of faulty processes (Steiner, 1972)
Steiner identified 2 forms of faulty process:
1. Coordination loss– Lack of synchronisation
2. Motivation loss– Lack of recognition– Lack of benefit
Performance and group size
• “What is the effect of group size on the task performance?”– Are groups more productive than an individual?– Are individuals more productive than a group?– Are large groups more productive than small
groups?• What are the task demands?• How do the task demands relate to the available
resources?
Effect of group size on performance
• Task demands are initial determinants of both potential and actual production.– Differences in faulty processes may vary:
• Groups may be more productive than individuals, or..
• Individuals may be more productive than a group
– So, necessary to have some kind of typology of task.
Task dimensions
Tasks can be distinguished along 3 main dimensions:
1. Divisible vs. unitary tasks
2. Maximising vs. mimimizing tasks
3. Combinability of the tasks
Divisible vs. unitary tasks
Some tasks are readily divided into sub-tasks – each of which may be performed by a
different individual• Building a house• Playing football• Creating a garden
– Other tasks make no sense if subdivided • Reading a page• Doing a maths sum
Maximising vs. minimizing tasks
• Maximizing/optimizing– Maximizing: (quantity)
• Doing task as much as possible• Doing task as quickly as possible• Generating many ideas• Scoring the most runs
– Optimizing: (quality)• Accuracy of bookkeeping • Weather forecasting• Writing your essays!!!
• Minimising– doing as little as possible
How combinable are the tasks for group members?
• Additive tasks – Group product = sum of the members
• Conjunctive tasks – A task which everyone must perform
• Disjunctive tasks – The group selects from individual member’s judgments, requires a
choice of answer among several possible alternatives
• Discretionary tasks– Conditions sometimes may allow different members to contribute
more or less (varied weightings) by assigning:• Total weight to single member• Equal weight to everybody• Or granting each person a different weight
Individual products of group members
• “What is the effect of group size on task performance?” – Meaningless question without a
satisfactory taxonomy of tasks (Steiner, 1972, 1976).
Additive tasks
Early experimental evidence
RINGLEMANN (1913) A French agricultural engineer who conducted most of his research
in late 1880’s.
1, 2, 3, or 8 people pulling on rope– Device measured the exact mount of forced exerted on the rope
• 63 kilo (1 person)• 118 kilo (2 people)• 160 kilo (3 people)• 248 kilo (8 people)
Group efficiency
• Results showed an INVERSE relationship between the number of people in the group and individual performance– As more people pulled, they used less effort!– Found that a large group needed only half the
effort per person than a small group• Attributed to co-ordination losses (pulling at different times) • Additive tasks – group performance is better than individual’s
performance when on own, although relative efficiency per person may decrease with increasing group size.
Conjunctive Tasks
• A task that every group member must perform– Performance of group dependant upon weakest
group member (i.e relay race, or group accent up the Tor)
– Performance depends on the relative abilities of the individuals concerned
– With increasing group size performance would be expected to decrease due to increased possibility of weak group member.
Disjunctive Task
• A task that requires a choice amongst several possible alternatives – Potential productivity of group is determined by the most
competent member• If one member of the group can perform the task, the group
can, possibly, still perform it• With increasing group size, you expect better performance
Conjunctive Disjunctivemore people = more people =
lower performance better performance
Disjunctive task: early experimental evidence
TAYLOR & FAUST (1952)
Game of ’20 questions’ (disjunctive as have to make a choice between several alternatives)
• Ss divided into categories– Working alone (x 15)– Working in pairs (x 15)– Working in groups of 4 (x 15)
• Ss given 4 problems a day for 4 consecutive days and allowed to ask 30 questions– Experimenter can only reply:
• Yes / No / Partly / Sometimes / Not in the normal sense of the word.
• DVs = no. of questions, failures, & time taken to solve problem
Results TAYLOR & FAUST (1952) • Superiority of groups over individuals in terms of
– Fewer questions asked– Fewer wrong answers given– Less time taken per problem
• Groups superior to pairs:– Fewer wrong answers given
• Individuals superior to groups and pairs:– For ‘man-minutes’ (e.g. time x no of people in group) Individuals
were quicker than pairs, who were quicker than groups (in terms of man-minutes to reach a solution, rather than actual time)
• So, cheaper to pay individuals by the hour than groups by the job
Early conclusions (Taylor & Faust, (1952)
• Disjunctive tasks– superior performance with groups (well
established finding)
• But this effect is inversely proportional to group size
– Individuals are more effective (in terms of man-minutes)
• Steiner suggests that superior performance of groups is due to the greater resources which they possess.
Brainstorming Osborn (1957)
• Special kind of group process– This is creative– Increased numbers of people disproportionately
increase number of ideas generated
• Rules of brainstorming– Free the individual from self-criticism and criticism
of others– The more ideas the better– Can adapt others ideas– Can combine ideas– Should not be critical…
Empirical evidence (MULLEN et al. 1991)
Meta-analysis of 20 studies of brainstorming
• Compared face-to-face groups operating under brainstorming conditions against ‘nominal groups’– Nominal groups were individuals who were
working alone but their ideas were subsequently pooled.
– Productivity was measured in two different ways• Quantity: the number of non-redundant ideas• Quality: involved rating of the ideas
Results (MULLEN et al. 1991)
Meta-analysis of 20 studies of brainstorming– Individuals generated more ideas than face-to-
face groups– Productivity LOSSES increase with the size of the
group– Both individuals and groups work best without an
‘expert’ giving guidance– Most ideas were generated when responses were
written down and not publicly shared
Why production losses in brainstorming occur
• Free-loading (social loafing)
– Motivation loss• Individual members expect that all ideas will be
pooled (group credit)
– Group allocation?
Effects of group allocation(Diehl & Stroebe, 1987)
• Allocation of group affects productivity– Design: 2 x 2
• Results:– Only 8% of variance explained by credit given– Most of the effect explained by group allocation
• Conclusion:– BRAINSTORMING GROUPS LESS PRODUCTIVE
Group type
Credit type Nominal Brainstorming
Group credit
Individual credit
Summary
Task dependent performance (Steiner)
• Additive & disjunctive tasks– Performance increases with increased group size
– But relative efficiency declines
• Conjunctive tasks– Performance decreases with increased groups
size in conjunctive tasks
Mullen et al. 1991– don’t need to invoke any special group
process for brainstorming – Group superiority over individuals can be
explained by interpreting brainstorming as a conjunctive task
But all this depends upon equal status…
Group structure
• Structure of group is independent of the people who occupy the various positions– Each person plays a ROLE within the
group• Roles are determined by social norms, rules of
conduct• Each role is evaluated differently by others• Each role has differing status
– But how does status emerge?
Interaction process analysis (IPA)
• Problem solving groups of unacquainted persons
• Observational analysis of behavioural categories (4 categories)– Interpersonal style of leadership
• Positive socio-emotional behaviour
• Negative socio-emotional behaviour
– Task directed style of leadership• Task behaviours
• Behaviours relating to exchanges of information
Expectation-states theory
• Emergence of group leaders– Higher status roles exert more influence
over production than lower status roles (Torrance, 1954)
• Assertive people are more influential than non-assertive people (Ofshe & Lee, 1981)
• Males are more influential than females, blacks, and younger people (DeGilder & Wilke, 1994)
Matching of leaders with resources
• By matching people with subtasks most qualified to perform.– Some resources give rise to higher
expectations of task completion than others (but not always!)
– Hemphill (1961) suggests need to consider both the nature of the task and the availability of a group member with the required resources:
• Groups must feel that task success is possible• Groups must attach value to task success• The task must require co-ordination and communication
Top Related