Psychology 

> Social Psychology > Group > Group Performance

Group Performance
Task performance or the outcome of some behavioral or intellectual goal is a key function of
many groups. Task-performing groups include various decision-making groups, sports teams,
and work teams. One would expect groups to benefit from their multiple and potentially
complementary skills. It is true that the more able or skilled the group or team members are, the
better the group is. Yet researchers have shown that there are a number of factors that inhibit
productivity in groups. However, groups can also reach high levels of productivity under the
right conditions and with the right group member composition.

There is an endless range of tasks that groups

could potentially perform. Some of these require a simple addition of effort, whereas others
require that each group member fulfill a particular role. On some tasks, the focus may be on
quantity or speed of output, and on others, the concern may be with quality of work. Some tasks
are mainly cognitive in that they require some degree of ideation, whereas others may be mostly
behavioral (e.g., sports or music performance). According to Ivan Steiner, the effectiveness of
groups may depend on the nature of the task they are required to perform. Group task
performance may often be less than optimal because of two types of process losses that occur in
groups: coordination and motivation. When group members work together, they have to
coordinate with one another, and this requirement may make it difficult for each member to
contribute his or her best effort. Group members may also be less motivated in groups than they
would be if they were working by themselves.

Productivity in Task-Performing Groups

When someone works in a large group and each individual’s performance is combined with that
of others, a person may be less motivated to work hard on behalf of the group. This type of
motivation loss is known as social loafing or free riding. Social loafing has been found to
increase with the size of the group, the extent to which a person’s performance is anonymous,
and the degree to which the task is seen as challenging. According to Kipling Williams and
Steven Karau, a person’s motivation level in groups depends on the extent to which he or she
believes the group goal can be attained and how much the person values this goal. That is, as
long as group members perceive that there is an incentive to work hard, they will not loaf. This
incentive to work hard can be increased by evaluating the work of group members individually.
Generally there is a strong relationship between an individual’s level of effort in the group and
the personal consequences for this level of effort.

When group members are accountable to one another or in competition with one another and
have challenging goals, they may in fact have increased motivation in groups. Individuals may
also compensate for the lack of effort on the part of other group members if they particularly
value the group goal. Similarly, a low-ability group member may increase his or her effort if the
group member thinks that a small increase in his or her effort will be important to the success of
the group.

When group members work together, they have to mesh their various talents and perspectives in
addition to coordinating their group activities. Groups have to decide who does what, when, and
how. This is seen clearly in sports teams and highly trained military units that require careful
coordination for success. A lack of effort or mistake in coordination by one or more group
members can mean failure for the group. Research has documented several of these types of
coordination problems. Garold Stasser has shown that groups do not fully share their unique
knowledge but tend to focus on what they have in common. This may be because the discussion
of shared information makes group members feel more comfortable and validated. In group
decisions, individuals often are more concerned about being agreeable than being right. In the
case of problem solving, someone with a correct answer often has a hard time persuading the
group of its veracity unless it can be easily demonstrated and/or support is gained from at least
one other group member. In group task performance situations, groups are also faced with the
problem of coordinating the input of individual group members into the group task. For these
reasons, it is not difficult to see why so few studies have been able to show group synergy cases
in which the performance of interacting groups exceeds the combined performance of individual
members.

Today many people do most of their work on computers, including a lot of information exchange
with coworkers. How effective is such electronic group interaction? For tasks that are fairly
individualistic, such as generating solutions to simple problems or idea generation, the absence
of coordination issues makes the electronic medium beneficial. However, for more complex
tasks requiring decision making or negotiation, computer interaction does not work as well. The
computer format makes it difficult to deal with all of the interactional subtleties required in these
situations because there are no nonverbal communication channels available to augment the
group’s verbal interaction.

Group Brainstorming: Productivity in Idea Groups

Group brainstorming represents one type of group activity that nicely demonstrates the role of
various group factors. Brainstorming involves the generation of novel ideas by expressing
thoughts as they occur, without concern for immediate evaluation. The goal is to generate a large
number of ideas that can subsequently be used as a basis for selecting the most useful ideas.
Although effective brainstorming instructions enhance the number of ideas generated, the group
product is typically significantly less than the total number of ideas generated by the same
number of individuals brainstorming alone. This is called a production loss and seems to be the
result of a number of procedural and motivational factors. Group members may be apprehensive
about sharing novel ideas in groups for fear that others may evaluate them negatively. They may
not exert a full effort because it may be lost in the overall group performance. In fact, there may
be a tendency for performance to go in the direction of the low-performing group members. A
major factor appears to be the interference or production blocking that results when individuals
compete with each other for opportunities to share ideas during the group exchange process.
Only one person can effectively share ideas at one time, and people may forget ideas while
waiting their turn.

All of these factors suggest that group brainstorming is a pretty futile exercise. However, there is
some reason for hope since exposure to ideas from others should stimulate additional ideas. Ideas
from others may remind a person of areas of knowledge that he or she had not considered or may
allow a person to combine his or her knowledge with the knowledge of other group members.
This should be particularly beneficial if group members have diverse backgrounds or expertise.
Cognitive stimulation effects have been observed, especially in a period of reflection after group
interaction since such a session allows for a full consideration of the relevance of shared ideas to
one’s own knowledge base. Group brainstorming on computers may also benefit the process,
especially with large groups. Computer brainstorming avoids the interference effects of face-to-
face brainstorming and allows a convenient process for subsequent individual reflection. Similar
benefits can be gained by exchanging ideas using slips of paper.

The brainstorming literature thus suggests that groups have considerable creative potential.
However, groups need to overcome some natural tendencies, and the interaction needs to be
structured to optimize the effective processing of exchanged information. Several other factors
are also helpful. Groups should have leaders or facilitators that can effectively guide them to
interact in a most effective way. Groups should feel psychologically safe to express any and all
ideas, so some prior group experience tha