In the article in the Algemeen Dagblad, author and neuroscientist Chantal van der Leest cites some interesting phenomena that occur in groups. Social loafing and the Ringelmann effect are cited in the article.
In social psychology, social loafing the phenomenon that a person puts less effort into achieving a goal when working in a group than when working alone. It is seen as one of the main reasons why groups are sometimes less productive than the combined performance of their members working individually. Research on social loafing began with experiments on rope pulling by Ringelmann, who found that members of a group tended to put less effort into pulling a rope than individuals on their own.
The Ringelmann effect, also known as social loafing, is the tendency of individual group members to become less and less productive as the size of their group increases (Ringelmann, 1913). This effect thus illustrates the inverse relationship that exists between the size of a group and the magnitude of the individual contribution of group members to the completion of a task. In studying the relationship between process loss (i.e., reduced performance effectiveness or efficiency) and group productivity, Ringelmann found that having group members work together on a task (e.g., pulling a rope) results in significantly less effort than when individual members act alone. Ringelmann found that as more and more people are added to a group, the group often becomes increasingly inefficient, ultimately violating the idea that group effort and team participation reliably result in more effort on behalf of its members.
In more recent research, studies with modern technology, such as online and distributed groups, have also shown clear evidence of social loafing. Many of the causes of social loafing stem from individual members feeling that their individual efforts do not matter to the group. However, cohesion in the groups makes visible the reduced effort of individual team members, reducing this effect (Liden et al., 2004).
A commonly used definition for a team is that of Katzenbach & Smith. They define a team as “A small number of people with complementary skills committed to a common goal, a set of performance objectives and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (1993, p. 2). This characterization is consistent with most definitions for teams in a work context (e.g., Forsyth, 2009) and highlights several important aspects of what makes a team a team. First, this definition emphasizes that a team is small, which is important because it is difficult for members of a large group to all be part of the same dynamic (such as the flow experience. From our research at Buurtzorg Nederland , for example, we know that it becomes less pleasant for care teams to work together with ten team members and that people start the conversation with each other to split when they reach twelve. You can also imagine that it is difficult to have meetings with a lot of people. You soon notice this when the number rises above seven. People then quickly drop out and are not part of the team dynamic.
According to Katherine Klein, the ideal team size for business teams is 5. According to Klein, if you go beyond six people, the team begins to lose individual performance. In comparison, teams with fewer than five people may suffer from uncomfortable team dynamics and skill shortages. According to Steiner’s book Group process and productivity, it is also 5 to 6. Of course, one team is not the other, and the ideal size depends on the joint activity one undertakes with each other, what knowledge and skills are needed to do so, and how to join forces. On this, we could write another whole book, as Steiner already did in 1972. For now, it seems important to us to consider how many people you actually think you will need to accomplish the task for each joint activity. So make sure the task is straightforward to the team (including deadline), and then how you divide the tasks and communicate about progress. Then you have already come a long way. In addition, giving everyone a straightforward task or role is still advisable.
In many organizations, teams sometimes consist of more than 30 people. To us, these are not teams, but rather departments. Teams arise within these large groups of people as departments, and the concept of teaming from Amy Edmondson and others is therefore also a very relevant concept. It is about the fact that when people revive a common ambition, they can quickly reach a healthy and productive cooperation. Even if you don’t yet know people well. It is then wise to invest in cohesion, a clear list of tasks (collectively as well as individually) and insight into everyone’s contributions and progress. In our team flow processes, we always invest in Team Awareness and Flow Awareness and illustrate this in our publications and presentations with the following figure (adapted from van den Hout & Davis, 2019):
So create a climate within organizations where you facilitate a team flow climate and thus allow flow to emerge in your felxible and often temporary teams! If you are interested in boosting the team flow climate within your organization, let us know by leaving a message on our contact page.
Written by JEF VAN DEN HOUT
