New research in Psychological Science suggests that certain group compositions may lead to elevated levels of conflict and inefficiency.
PROBLEM: Though many believe that equality within a team is important, does this flat power structure really improve a group's performance?
- There's a 'Bamboo Ceiling' for Would-Be Asian Leaders
- Keep Your Commute to Less Than 15 Miles (or Else)
- Bilingualism May Boost Attention, Working Memory
METHODOLOGY: Researchers led by Richard Ronay randomly assigned 138 undergraduate students to one of three experimental conditions -- primed to feel high in power, low in power, and baseline or control. They organized subjects into same-sex teams of three high-power participants and three low-power participants or groups with one high-power, one low-power, and one baseline participant. They then measured the teams' performance in a task that required group interdependence wherein each member was required to make words from 16 letters and then work as a group to combine the words into as many sentences as possible. They also measured how the groups fared on a second task that did not require subjects to coordinate their efforts.
RESULTS: The groups with hierarchies were more productive than the teams with either all high-power or all low-power members. This hierarchy benefit was evident when group members were required to work on a task together, but not when they were working alone.
CONCLUSION: A built-in hierarchy helps a team work effectively on collaborative tasks.
IMPLICATION: When there are too many leaders or too few followers, group performance suffers as members jostle to take control. The authors say in a statement that a clear power structure and division of labor can reduce group conflicts and improve productivity.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.