AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

TEAM SIZE ON MANAGING COMPLEX TASK

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty

of Senior High School
Emilio Aguinaldo College – Cavite

In Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirements for Senior High School 12

BONIOG, LYNSSEY DANIELLE

FUELLAS, JEFFREY N.
HEMBRA, KAYLEIGH B.
HONRADO, DANIEL H.
JARO, ANTHONY T.
ROMANO, KATE DARYLL O.
SAMSON, MAC CEDRIC L.
TUSIAP, MARK ANTHONY T.

April 2019
 Group estimate is one of the components that will in general make

problematic conditions for execution and effect group execution adversely

(Gooding and Wagner, 1986; Steiner, 1972). Albeit bigger groups carry with them

the potential for more noteworthy data handling and basic leadership capacities

(Carnevale and Probst, 1998), these potential advantages are frequently repressed

by harming requests and group procedures, for example, progressively complex

coordination, diminishes in colleagues' inspiration, and increasingly relational

issues (Steiner, 1972; K. Y. Williams and O'Reilly, 1998). Not very many

examinations have taken a gander at the procedures that can clarify how group

measure influences execution in overseeing groups. No examinations have

inspected the potential arbiters in the size-execution relationship in overseeing

undertaking and just has taken a gander at the connection among size and execution

in an example that included overseeing errands Wheelan (2009). In her

investigation of 329 administration and task groups she found that bigger groups

reliably performed more awful than littler ones. Groups are major to an extensive

variety of generation and critical thinking undertakings, a significant number of

which are "intricate" as in they involve related subtasks. Regardless of their

significance, in any case, and the extensive consideration that has been paid to

groups over a scope of orders, including financial matters, brain research, human

science, and the board science, the elements influencing group execution in

unpredictable, reasonable undertaking situations remain ineffectively

comprehended, both in principle and practically speaking.

 Models of aggregate execution center around a couple of causal factors at

once expecting, in actuality, that just these variables shift while all else stays break

even with. Conversely, genuine errands are adequately mind boggling and

multifaceted that a wide range of speculations each creation unique and possibly

conflicting or even opposing forecasts—might be similarly material to a similar

circumstance, with vague outcomes. For instance, a basic precept of monetary

hypothesis is that division of work, by enabling laborers to practice, can

significantly build aggregate profitability. Laborers in groups can likewise gain

from others, in this manner supplementing and quickening increases to

specialization by diminishing the need to take care of issues freely. All else measure

up to, in this way, the mix of expanding specialization and observational learning

would appear to suggest that group execution should increment with size for

complex errands. Very unexpectedly, notwithstanding, similarly settled hypotheses

from brain science, financial aspects, and the executives recommend that expanding

group size can hurt profitability for an assortment of reasons: since laborers

discover it progressively enticing to free ride on the endeavors of others; in light of

the fact that the overhead connected with correspondence increments with the

quantity of people whose endeavors must be facilitated; or on the grounds that

correspondence between colleagues prompts crowding and oblivious obedience. In

complex assignment conditions, along these lines, in which all these clashing

components may exist at the same time, the connection between group size and

execution isn't all around depicted by existing hypothesis. Research on team size

and team performance has a long tradition. Already in the early 1900s Ringelmann
(1913) documented the tendency for teams to become increasingly more inefficient

as they grow in size (Forsyth, 2010). Building on previous research, Steiner (1972)

called this process loss. He noted that as a group increases in size it becomes

increasingly more difficult to coordinate and motivate all the members thus leading

to increased process loss. More recently, Mueller (2012) introduced the concept of

relational loss, suggesting that as teams grow in size each individual member can

experience decreases in his or her performance due to less available social support.

In any case, bigger groups may in any case perform superior to anything

littler ones in spite of the fact that they encounter process misfortunes through

issues identified with inspiration, coordination or social help. The writing regularly

sees size and execution as reliant on two restricting powers. From one viewpoint

process misfortunes harm execution (Steiner, 1972; Wheelan, 2009). Then again,

bigger groups have better capacities to process data and make an increasingly

educated information base for basic leadership that can enhance execution

(Carnevale and Probst, 1998; Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993) (see hypothetical

points of view area for an inside and out exchange of how these viewpoints

associate).

Research recommends bigger groups are related with a few negative results.

As group estimate increments there is more disappointment inside the gathering

(Lundgren and Bogart, 1974; Thomas and Fink, 1963). Gathering individuals are

increasingly disappointed with their job in the gathering (Steiner, 1972), grumble

progressively about the gathering's working (Steiner, 1972), see less help from

different individuals (Mueller, 2012), and recognize less with the gathering
(Cunningham and Chelladurai, 2004). Wheelan's (2009) think about on the

executives – and venture groups supplement these discoveries. She found that

groups with three to six individuals experienced altogether more trust and structure

inside the group than groups with seven to ten individuals. A similar distinction

was discovered when contrasting groups comprising of seven with ten individuals

with groups of eleven individuals or more.

Curiously, Wheelan (2009) did likewise correlation on impression of group

efficiency and adequacy and found comparative contrasts between group sizes.

Littler groups performed superior to bigger ones in every examination. The impact

moreover held when contrasting groups of four with five individuals with groups

of six to seven individuals. Another investigation on groups in the IT-segment

found comparable outcomes in that bigger groups were related with lower

execution (Sharma and Ghosh, 2007).

Also, in a meta-examination on authoritative subunits and subunit

execution, Gooding and Wagner (1985) found that bigger subunits were contrarily

identified with execution estimated both as proficiency and as the beneficial yield

of the subunit. Nonetheless, subunits included numerous kinds of subunits running

from work-gatherings to for example offices, post workplaces and school units

making it fairly increasingly hard to know how agent these outcomes are for size

and execution in supervisory groups.

Statement of the Problem

 The researchers aim to answer the questions that will serve as a guide as the

research goes, it is to help the study to be great and understandable.

1. What is the difference between pretest mean scores before the intervention?

2. What is the difference between posttest mean scores after the intervention?

Scope and Delimitation

The researchers identifies the boundaries of the study in terms of subjects,

objectives, facilities, areas, time, frame, and the issues to which the research entitled

"An Experimental Analysis: The effectiveness of team size on managing complex

task" is focused to. This study aims to know if there's an effect in number of people

in a group, on managing a complex task. A total of 30 selected Grade 12 STEM

strand Senior High School Students. The researchers will conduct the pre-test and

post-test inside the school premises of Emilio Aguinaldo College during the school

year 2018-2019.

Definition of Terms

The readers’ perspective must be limited in the study to make them easily

to understand the research definition of terms. These terms are related to one

another. However, there are strong reasons why maintaining a clear

distinction between them is important for purposes of assessing the benefits of

conversation practices. The set words are given with these two definitions to make

the study clear and can be understand by the readers. The operational definitions
are cited from Merriam Webster Dictionary while the conceptual definitions are

defined by the researchers prior to terms related to the study.

Team: a number of persons associated together in work or activity; an organized

group that is dependable to each other and cooperatively working to accomplish

a task.

Performance: the execution of an action; public presentation or exhibition;

Performance is a subjective perception of reality, which explains the multitude of

critical reflections on the concept and its measuring instruments.

Managing: to handle or direct with a degree of skill; work upon or try to alter for

a purpose; the process of reaching organizational goals by working with and

through people and other organizational resources.

Complex Task: a usually assigned piece of work often to be finished within a

certain time; structured and rigorous method for producing and supporting claims.

Decision-Making: the act or process of deciding something especially with a group

of people; the one that can improve performance.

Significance of the Study

The importance of this study entitled "An Experimental Analysis: The

Effectiveness of Team Size on Managing Complex Task" is for us to understand

and analyze the collected information on how teams of different sizes behave in

different ways. Furthermore, the results of this experimental study could be highly

significant and beneficial to the following:

 The Administrators. The results of the study will provide them with

powerful leadership in helping the students gain motivation and productivity when

it comes to doing activities inside the school premises.

The Teachers. The given data would provide them with knowledge

regarding the importance of team size when doing activities inside the classroom.

Therefore, they may create activities inside or outside the classroom which helps

strengthen individual’s contributions and productivity that will help the team

succeed on a certain task.

The Students. The outcome of the study will give them the realization that

when it comes to teams, size matters. The students would be able to understand the

importance of individual’s productivity when it comes to complex tasks.

The Future Researchers. This study will be beneficial and an opportunity

to gain more knowledge. This study will also serve as a guide reference for future

researchers who would like to conduct same study.

Hypotheses

The researchers made two different hypotheses. The null hypotheses which

states that there is no significant effect of team size towards managing complex task

among the selected Grade 11 Senior High School Students at Emilio Aguinaldo

College – Cavite and the alternative hypotheses which states that there is a

significant effect of team size towards managing complex task among the selected

Grade 11 STEM strand Senior High School Students at Emilio Aguinaldo College

– Cavite.
Theoretical Framework

Two theories were presented that are affiliated to this study. According to

Gabriel Abend (2008), theories are formulated to explain, to predict and understand

phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within

the limits of critical bounding assumptions. This theories is the structure that can

hold or support the theory of the research study. Two theories were introduced,

described and explained why the research problem under the study exist,

Steiner’s Model of Group Size and Productivity

As indicated by Steiner (1972), the genuine efficiency of a gathering

comprises of the gathering's potential profitability less process misfortunes because

of increments in size. The misfortunes because of defective procedures occur

through coordination issues and loss of inspiration.

Coordination issues happen on the grounds that when a gathering develops

in size the quantity of coordination joins conceivable in the gathering increment

exponentially (Steiner, 1972). For example, a gathering of three individuals just

comprises of three conceivable coordination joins (i.e. part 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 2 and

3), a gathering of five comprises of nine coordination joins, and a gathering of seven

comprises of 21 conceivable coordination joins. In this manner, as a gathering

increments in size it will have dynamically more challenges with organizing its

individuals. Persuasive issues happen with expanding bunch measure because of

diminished recognizability of every part's work (Steiner, 1972). As a gathering

develops bigger it is progressively increasingly troublesome for a solitary part to

recognize his or her commitment to the gathering result. Every part's commitment

additionally turns out to be less noticeable to the next gathering individuals

regularly prompting a social loafing impact where individuals put less exertion into

the gathering work (Steiner, 1972). As the gathering size develops Steiner (1972)

recommends that increments in process misfortune because of persuasive and

coordination issues abrogate increments in potential efficiency. Because of an

exponential increment in coordination requests when group measure expands, he

recommend that the pessimistic impacts of increments in group estimate happens

all the more quickly for gatherings that need elevated amounts of relational

coordination.

The model of gathering size and efficiency is imperative for the size-

execution relationship in MTs for two reasons. In the first place, individuals from

MTs are regularly related in an expansive segment of the work they do (Blast and

Midelfart, 2012). They invest a great deal of energy talking about complex issues

between each other, illuminating one another and settling on some of the time very

unpredictable choices (Blast and Øverland, 2009). Since expanding bunch measure

puts step by step more weight on coordination requests and MTs are subject to

ceaseless collaboration and participation, it is conceivable that procedure

misfortunes abrogates potential increments in efficiency quickly and from the get-

go.

The Information/Decision-Making Perspective (IDMP)

 The data/basic leadership viewpoint proposes that the execution of a group

will increment as more points of view are added to it (K. Y. Williams and O'Reilly,

1998). The aggregates of various aptitudes and capacities make a superior

establishment for settling on choices and will along these lines increment group

execution. Furthermore, individuals with various aptitudes and capacities may

approach distinctive kinds of data outside the group. This entrance expands the

group's aggregate data input considerably further (K. Y. Williams and O'Reilly,

1998). K. Y. Williams and O'Reilly (1998) recommend that the constructive

outcomes of more viewpoints in a group are especially valuable for groups

managing complex choices and when colleagues are subject to one another.

The data handling point of view is applicable for the impacts of size in MTs

since they just comprise of directors overseeing distinctive parts of the association.

Hence, adding another administrator to the MT is synonymous with including

another point of view the association. Since a huge bit of a MT's time is spent on

data sharing and basic leadership the data/basic leadership point of view

recommends a beneficial outcome of group estimate on group execution.

Conceptual Framework

?
Control Group

Intervention Results

Pre-test
? Post-test

Experimental Group
 Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

This framework was done to elaborate the whole process on conducting the

study aimed to find the effectiveness of team size in performing a complex task.

First, the researchers pick and create group having a controlled and an experimental

one. Both of the group will take a pre-test or the diagnostic exam to know the prior

knowledge of the groups with regards to the coming activity. During the

performance the researchers will observe about how the groups work and function.

After completing the task both of the group will take another exam as post-test to

know if something has changed to the knowledge of the group with regards to the

activity. All the data gathered will transform and be formulated to find whether one

of the hypotheses are true and for the statement of the problem be answered.

Review of Related Literatures and Studies

The Impact of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning

Environments on Academic Achievement (David W. Johnson and Roger T.

Johnson) (September, 2010 Hattie, J., & Anderman, E. (Eds.)

Learning situations reflect the general structure of the learning objectives,

which thus to a great extent decides the day by day schedules, the social and
emotional atmosphere, and the moment to moment connection among the educator

and understudies and among the understudies themselves. There are three manners

by which the learning objectives might be organized—cooperatively,

competitively, and individualistically. Cooperative learning is the instructional

utilization of small groups with the goal that understudies cooperate to boost their

very own and each other's learning. Within cooperative circumstances, people look

for results that are gainful to themselves and advantageous to all other gathering

individuals. Competitive learning is understudies neutralizing each other to

accomplish a scholarly objective, for example, a grade of "A" that just a single or a

couple of understudies can achieve. Within competitive circumstances, people look

for results that are advantageous to themselves however negative to all other

groups. Individualistic learning is understudies working without anyone else to

achieve learning objectives random to those of alternate understudies. In

individualistic circumstances, people look for results that are gainful to themselves,

overlooking as superfluous the others of others. In cooperative and individualistic

learning, instructors assess understudy endeavours on a criteria-referenced premise

while in competitive learning educators review understudies on a standard

referenced premise. While there are restrictions on when and where educators may

utilize focused and individualistic adapting properly, instructors may structure any

learning undertaking in any subject with any educational programs cooperatively.

There are three kinds of cooperative learning: formal cooperative learning, informal

cooperative learning, and cooperative base groups (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec,

2008). Formal cooperative learning comprises of understudies cooperating, for one

class period to © Johnson and Johnson 3 several weeks, to accomplish shared

learning objectives and finish together explicit undertakings and assignments, for

example, critical thinking, finishing an educational programs unit, composing a

report, leading an analysis, or having a discourse about allotted content material.

Any course prerequisite or task might be organized to be cooperative. Informal

cooperative learning comprises of having understudies cooperate to accomplish a

joint learning objective in brief, specially appointed gatherings that last from a

couple of minutes to one class period. Understudies take part in fast discoursed or

exercises in brief, specially appointed groups in limited of a set number of inquiries

regarding what is being realized or learned. Cooperative base group are long term,

heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with stable membership whose essential

obligations are to offer help, support, and help to gain scholarly ground and grow

intellectually and socially in solid courses and also considering each other

responsible for endeavouring to learn.

Cooperative learning has powerful effects scholarly accomplishment. It is

straightforwardly founded on social reliance hypothesis, there are many research

ponders approving its viability, and there are clear operational systems for teachers

to utilize. In this section, accordingly, the nature of cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic learning will be quickly characterized, the nature of social related

hypothesis will be talked about, and the exploration showing the effect of agreeable

learning on accomplishment will be introduced.

Basically putting understudies in gatherings and instructing them to

cooperate does not all by itself make viable collaboration. There are numerous
manners by which collective endeavours can turn out badly (Johnson and F.

Johnson, 2009). The boundaries to effective cooperative learning are avoided when

it is legitimately organized. Effective cooperative learning is reliant on five

essential components being organized in every agreeable exercise (Johnson,

Johnson, and Holubec, 2008). The first and most vital component is certain

reliance. Positive reliance exists when aggregate individuals see that they are

connected with one another in a way that one can't succeed except if everybody

succeeds (Deutsch, 1962). In the event that one fall, all fall flat. Johnson and

Johnson. The second basic component of cooperative learning is individual and

gathering responsibility. The groups must be responsible for accomplishing its

objectives. Every part should be responsible for contributing his or a lot of the work

which guarantees that nobody "drifts" on crafted by others. The third basic part is

promotive interaction. Promotive interaction happens when individuals share assets

and help, bolster, empower, and commend each other's endeavours to learn.

cooperative learning groups are both a scholarly supportive network, each

understudy has somebody who is focused on helping him or her learn and an

individual emotionally supportive network each understudy has somebody who is

focused on him or her as a man. The fourth basic component of cooperative learning

is showing understudies the required relational and small groups’ abilities. In

cooperative learning group of understudies are required to learn scholastic topic

(responsibility) and furthermore to take in the relational and small group abilities

required to work as a component of a gathering collaboration, for example,

initiative, basic leadership, trust-building, correspondence, and conflict

management Johnson, 2009; Johnson and F. Johnson, 2009. The fifth fundamental

part of cooperative learning is group processing. Group handling exists when amass

individuals talk about how well they are accomplishing their objectives and keeping

up viable working connections. Groups need to portray what part activities are

useful and unhelpful and settle on choices about what practices to proceed or

change.

Collaborative Competencies

The 6th factor influencing the accomplishment of minority people in

instructive and vocation associations is their skill in teaming up with others.

Community oriented skills are the cornerstone to building and keeping up stable

relational unions, families, vocations, and fellowships. Being ready to perform

specialized abilities, for example, perusing, talking, tuning in, composing,

processing, and critical thinking are of little use if the individual can't make a

difference those abilities in helpful communication with other individuals. Schools

have been places that advanced unlikely desires for what profession, family, and

network life might resemble. Most professions don't anticipate that individuals will

sit in columns and contend with partners without interfacing with them.

Collaboration, correspondence, powerful coordination, and divisions of work

describe all the more genuine settings.

In 1982 the Inside for Open Assets distributed Essential Abilities in the U.S.

Workforce: The Differentiating View of Business, Work, and Open Training. This

investigation was an across the nation study of organizations and ventures that had
yearly 1980 offers of more noteworthy than $100 million and that utilized no less

than 500 representatives, of significant worker's guilds, and of open instructive

organizations in all parts of the nation. Organizations, worker's organizations, and

schools were in assertion that communitarian abilities were critical in business

maintenance. Terminations because of absence of essential and specialized

aptitudes were not much of the time revealed, but rather terminations because of

poor occupation dispositions, relational connections, conduct, or dress represented

90 percent of terminations. Professional success, be that as it may, appeared to be

seriously limited for grown-ups who were lacking in specialized and essential

abilities. An essential prerequisite for employability, and vocation movement, is the

capacity to work adequately with others to play out an undertaking and comprehend

issues. Architects and other cutting edge staff should now, like never before, work

with different researchers and experts and also market analysts, government

authorities, and so forth., to achieve palatable and commonly worthy structures for

future innovation. All architects, for instance, must be equipped for speaking with

and working with individuals of different callings to settle interdisciplinary issues.

Various examinations have reported that community abilities are basic for fruitful

designing vocations (Smith, Johnson, and Johnson, 1981b). Specialized and logical

learning are of no utilization if an understudy can't apply them in agreeable

communication with other individuals. It does a whole lot of nothing to prepare a

designer if the individual can't work viably with other individuals and contribute

what they know to joint endeavours and keep up work as a specialist or secretary

after they have completed school. The mechanical procedure of Japan is a decent
outline of this guideline. Japanese the board has been cited as expressing that the

predominance of the Japanese modern framework did not depend on the way that

their specialists are more shrewd than are the specialists of different nations,

however that their labourers are better ready to work in amicability and

participation with one another. Clearly, the examinations noted above in the area

on primitive connection show that understudies in agreeable learning circumstances

take in more synergistic aptitudes than do understudies adapting aggressively or

independently. These abilities, moreover, have been shown to exchange to new

circumstances (R. Johnson and Johnson, 1982a).

Managing Relationship Conflict and the Effectiveness of Organizational

Teams

As indicated by Carsten K.W. De Dreu and Annelies E.M. Van Vianen

(2001) in their diary entitled "Overseeing relationship struggle and the adequacy of

hierarchical groups" they said past research has uncovered that group viability and

fulfillment endure when groups encounter relationship strife—struggle identified

with relational issues, political standards and qualities, and individual taste. This

investigation inspected how groups ought to react to these contentions. Three kinds

of contention reactions were considered: teaming up reactions, battling reactions,

and maintaining a strategic distance from reactions. A field think about including a

heterogeneous example of groups performing complex, non‐routine undertaking

demonstrated that working together and battling reactions to relationship struggle

contrarily identify with group working (i.e., voice, consistence, helping conduct)
and in general group viability, while staying away from reactions were related with

high group working and adequacy. It is proposed thatz working together and

battling reactions to relationship struggle divert colleagues from their undertakings,

while staying away from reactions seem progressively useful in that they permit

colleagues to seek after errand execution.

Since strife is an inalienable piece of the human condition. In contrast to

specific undertakings or duties, struggle isn't detached to some part of life. As they

said relational clash is identified with this theme it ought to be overseen and settled

before it deteriorates into verbal attack and unsalvageable harm to a group.

Managing relational clash can be a troublesome and uneasy process. For the most

part, as colleagues, they utilize painstakingly worded articulations to maintain a

strategic distance from grindings while standing up to struggle. In addition, stayed

away from strife will prompt less ideal arrangements and may even keep the group

from completing an undertaking and the bigger objective can help by giving

colleagues a thought process in settling it.

How Leaders Foster Self-Managing Team Effectiveness: Design Choices

Versus Hands-on Coaching

Ruth Wageman (2001) in her article "How Leaders Foster Self-Managing

Team Effectiveness: Design Choices Versus Hands-on Coaching", said that those

multi-technique field ponder looks at the general impacts of two sorts of pioneer

practices; plan decisions and hands-on instructing on the viability of self-

overseeing groups. Discoveries demonstrate that how pioneers structure their

groups and the nature of their hands-on instructing both impact group self-

administration, the nature of part connections, and part fulfillment, yet just pioneers'

plan exercises influence group errand execution. In addition, structure and

instructing cooperate, with the goal that all around planned groups are helped more

by viable training and undermined less by insufficient instructing than are

inadequately structured groups.

The challenges of encouraging self-supervisory crews especially in

associations with accounts of individualistic, administrator coordinated work-have

been very much recorded. Endeavors to make self-supervisory groups have

regularly brought about poor execution, individualistic conduct, and evasion of the

basic leadership important for successful, helpful collaboration (Cohen and Ledford

1994, Cordery et al. 1991, Cummings and Griggs 1977, Hackman 1998). These

challenges have been credited to shortages in the inspiration and capacity of

supervisors to make the conditions that encourage self-administration

(Goliembiewski 1995, Hut and Molleman 1998), and additionally to obstruction

from colleagues in going up against self-administration (Balkema and Mollerman

1999, Wellins et al. 1991). Significantly less is thought about the sorts of pioneer

exercises that surmount these challenges.

To make self-overseeing groups that both perform well and support their

self-overseeing character after some time. This audit explores the different and joint

impacts of two very various types of pioneer exercises; group structure and hands-

on instructing on how much groups end up self-overseeing and on their execution

adequacy. The space of the examination is confined to self-overseeing groups that

have an assigned group pioneer who is certainly not an ordinary individual from

the group. Prohibited are groups that have no specialist for dealing with their very

own execution procedures and groups with no assigned pioneer or whose authority

is only casual. In any case, the challenges of encouraging self-supervisory crews

especially in associations with accounts of individualistic, chief coordinated work

have been very much recorded. Endeavors to make self-supervisory groups have

regularly brought about poor execution, individualistic conduct, and shirking of the

basic leadership essential for powerful, helpful collaboration (Cohen and Ledford

1994, Cordery et al. 1991, Cummings and Griggs 1977, Hackman 1998). These

challenges have been ascribed to shortages in the inspiration and capacity of

directors to make the conditions that cultivate self-administration (Goliembiewski

1995, Hut and Molleman 1998), and additionally to obstruction from colleagues in

going up against self-administration (Balkema and Mollerman 1999, Wellins et al.

1991).