COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN SCIENTIFIC TEAMS · Predictive Value of CI and Individual Intelligence 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 Study 1: Video game Study 2: Architectural design Collective

PRESENTED TO Science of Team Science Conference 2018

PRESENTED BY Anita Williams WoolleyAssociate Professor of Organizational Behavior and TheoryCarnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN SCIENTIFIC TEAMSMAY 2018

© 2018 ANITA WILLIAMS WOOLLEY

Teams in the U.S. Intelligence Community

OPERATION MALEDICTA:

TARGET 2 --SEABROOK

2


EXPERTISE DIVERSITY

3

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Generalists Subject Matter Experts

*PE

RFO

RMAN

CE

Woolley, Gerbasi, Chabris, Kosslyn & Hackman, 2008

*p < .05, two-tailed


Visual

Verbal

Quantitative

Spatial g

The “g-FACTOR” for individuals

4


A “C-FACTOR” for teams? Motivation

Individualability

Resources

Opportunity C

5


A “C-FACTOR” for team performance

Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi & Malone, Science, 2010

TASK 1

TASK 2

TASK 3

TASK 4

TASK 5

.32*

.36*

.72**

.57*

.69*

Video Game Score.51**

Average IQ

.08

Collective Intelligence

6


Predictive Value of CI and Individual Intelligence

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.5

Study 1:Video game

Study 2:Architectural design

Collective Intelligence

Average Member Intelligence

Maximum Member Intelligence

GRO

UP

PERF

ORM

ANCE

Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi & Malone, 20107


What Leads to Smart Groups?

SMARTGROUPS

GROUP SA TISF ACTION (r = -.07)

COH ESION (r = -.12)

MOTIVA TION (r = -.01)

NOT

8



Right Goals

Right People

Good Collaboration

9


Women and Collective Intelligence

Error bars: 95% confidence interval

ALL MALE

MAJORITY MALE

50/50 MAJORITY FEMALE

ALL FEMALE

-0.50

Avg CI

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

TEAM GENDER COMPOSITION

MEA

N C

OLL

ECTI

VE IN

TELL

IGEN

CE

10


Social Perceptiveness

Playful Comforting Irritated Bored

“Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Baron-Cohen et al., 2001



Playful

Comforting

Irritated

Bored

“Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Baron-Cohen et al., 200112



Right People

Right Goals

Good Collaboration


13


Team Size

“Understaffed” versus “Overstaffed”

Teams that are too large . . .

– . . . Have more “social loafing” problems

– . . . Experience greater coordination loss

– . . . Provide fewer opportunities for each individual to contribute


Distribution of Participation

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perc

ent o

f tot

al a

cts

Source: Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill: 170. Reprinted with permission.


What Kind of Diversity Matters?

SURFACE-LEVELDIVERSITY

DEEP-LEVELDIVERSITY

Observable characteristics that lead to the creation of social categories (gender, race, etc.)

Underlying differences in perspectives, opinions, information, and values (religion, political affiliation, professional training, etc.)

16


Top Brain, Bottom Brain

Top Brain, Bottom Brain: Harnessing the power of four cognitive modes by Stephen Kosslyn and Wayne Miller (2013)

Top Brain

Bottom Brain

17


Cognitive Styles

Object Visualization

Verbalization

Large : BigTriumph: ___________ (1) Small (2) Success (3) Lose

Spatial Visualization

18


Cognitive Styles

Verbalization Spatial Visualization

Object Visualization

19


Cognitive Style Diversity & CI

Aggarwal, Woolley, Chabris, & Malone, under review

4.00

2.00

.00

-2.00

-4.00

.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

COGNI TIVE

DIVERSI TY

CO

LL

EC

TIV

E

INT

EL

LIG

EN

CE

20


Contingency Variable: Task Type

Exploration and Innovation

Efficiency and implementation of known solutions



Right People

Right Goals

Good Collaboration


Cognitive Diversity

22


Goals must be …

Clear

Specific

Challenging


The Importance of Clear Purpose

"It's OK to spend a lot of time arguing about which route to take to San

Francisco when everyone wants to end up there, but a lot of time gets wasted in such arguments if one person wants

to go to San Francisco and another secretly wants to go to San Diego"

-Steve Jobs

(Eisenhardt, Kahwajy & Bourgois, HBR 1997 p. 80)


Challenging Goals

Goal Difficulty and Task Performance

Easy Moderate Difficult Impossible

Task

Per

form

ance

Goal Difficulty

Intensityand

PersistenceMaximized


Specifying Means vs. EndsENDS

SPECIFIED?

MEANSSPECIFIED?

UNFOCUSED OUTCOME FOCUSED

PROCESS FOCUSED

MICRO MANAGEMENT

NO

YE

S

YESNO

26


Process- vs. Outcome Focused Teams

PROCESS-FOCUSED TEAMS

OUTCOME-FOCUSED TEAMS

emphasize schedule, tasks, roles first

subordinate outcomes to process

emphasize desired outcomes first

subordinate process to outcomes

27


Creative Team Performance

Woolley, A.W. (2009)28

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Unfocused Process-focused Outcome-focused

Perf

orm

ance


Commission of Errors

Aggarwal & Woolley, 2013

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

High Process Focus Low Process Focus

Erro

rs

29


When is Each Desirable?

Planning is important for both, it’s the nature of the planning that changes!

PROCESS FOCUSED OUTCOME FOCUSED

When task requires: Impartiality Error prevention Comprehensiveness

Examples: Audits Carrying out scientific studies Jury trials

When task requires: Innovation Insight Identifying priorities

Examples: Finding a research question Crafting new strategy Product development

30


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Spatial-Spatial Spatial-Object Object-Object

Cognitive Diversity and Process Focus

*p<.05

Aggarwal & Woolley, 201331


Strategic Orientation and Process Focus

Woolley, Bear, Chang & DeCostanza, 2013

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Offense Defense

32



Right People

Right Goals

Good Collaboration


Cognitive Diversity

33

Balancing Process and Outcome Focus


CI and Communication

Uneven distribution in speaking turns negatively predicts c

Sociometric Badge

Woolley et al., 201034


Better groups chat moreBetter groups participate more equally

Communication Online

Engel, Woolley, Jing, Chabris & Malone, 201435



Right People

Right Goals

Good Collaboration


Cognitive Diversity

36


High Level and Equality of Communication

Integration


Expertise Diversity & Integration

-1.25

-0.75

-0.25

0.25

0.75

1.25

NoExercise

IntegrationExercise

NoExercise

IntegrationExercise

Generalists Subject Matter Experts

*

*PE

RFO

RMAN

CE

Woolley, Gerbasi, Chabris, Kosslyn & Hackman, 2008

*p < .05, two-tailed

37


SEQUENTIALINTERDEPENDENCE X

PRODUCT

P1 P2 P3

POOLED INTERDEPENDENCE

GROUP MEMBERS

xPRODUCT

Interdependence

Swimming

American Football

Efficiency

Accuracy

Adapted from J. Thompson, 196738

RECIPROCALINTERDEPENDENCE

P1 P2 P3

Basketball

Integration


What undermines integration in teams?

Functional Silos

Too many team assignments

Unclear who is on the team

Faultlines

39


French

Singaporean

Sales

Engineering

Paris SingaporeParis Singapore

Different on 1, 2, 3 dimensions

Something to keep an eye out for:Faultlines

Similar on 1, 2, 3 dimensions

GeographicCultural Linguistic Temporal Technological Organizational

GeographicCultural Linguistic Temporal Technological Organizational



Right People

Right Goals

Good Collaboration


Cognitive Diversity

41



Integration


Answer: Yes, a great deal

Do Key Ingredients Matter?

70+% 50+%

International study of 120+ senior leadership teams

Empirical study of 64 analytic teams in six intelligence

agencies

STUDY

PERCENT OF PERFORMANCEVARIATION CONTROLLED

(Hackman & O’Connor, 2004 ) AND (Wageman, Nunes, Burruss, & Hackman, 2008) 42


60-30-10 Rule

60% of a team’s effectiveness is determined by conditions that can be put in place before the team even convenes

30% is determined by activities that go on at the team’s launch meeting

10% is determined by what the leader does after the team is already underway with its work

Hackman, 2011


Study: A Simple Surgery Checklist Saves Lives

44


EXAMPLE: LOCKHEED SKUNK WORKS



Right People

Right Goals

Good Collaboration


Cognitive Diversity

46



Integration


Key Conclusions

Collectives are characterized by a stable level of intelligence

Leaders can lay the groundwork for a team to succeed even before their very first meeting

RECRUIT THE RIGHT MIX OFPEOPLE

CLEARLY AND CORRECTLY SPECIFY THEGOAL

SET NORMS AND STRUCTURE WORK SO THAT TEAM ACHIEVES A HIGH LEVEL OF

INTEGRATION

To create the conditions for CI to develop, leaders must:

47

THANK YOU!Anita Williams [email protected]

48


REFERENCES Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2013). Do you see what I see? The effect of members’ cognitive styles on team processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 122, 92–99. Aggarwal, I., Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (under review). Learning how to coordinate: The moderating role of cognitive diversity on the relationship

between collective intelligence and team learning. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with

Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42(2), 241–251. Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Jing, L. X., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective

intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e115212. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115212 Hackman, J. R., & O’Connor, M. (2004). What makes for a great analytic team? Individual vs. team approaches to intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: Intelligence

Science Board, Office of the Director of Central Intelligence. Thompson, J. D. (1967). The Structure of Complex Organizations (pp. 29–43). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Wageman, R., Nunes, D. A., Burruss, J. A., & Hackman, J. R. (2008). Senior Leadership Teams: What it takes to make them great. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press. Woolley, A. W. (2009). Means versus ends: Implications of outcome and process focus for team adaptation and performance. Organization Science, 20, 500–515. Woolley, A. W. (2009). Putting first things first: Outcome and process focus in knowledge work teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 427–452. Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–424. Woolley, A. W., Gerbasi, M. E., Chabris, C. F., Kosslyn, S. M., & Hackman, J. R. (2008). Bringing in the experts: How team composition and work strategy jointly shape

analytic effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39(3), 352–371. Woolley, A. W., Bear, J. B., Chang, J. W., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2013). The effects of team strategic orientation on team process and information search. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 114–126. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.002 Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science,

330 (6004), 686–688.

49

Documents

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN SCIENTIFIC TEAMS · Predictive Value of CI and Individual Intelligence 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 Study 1: Video game Study 2: Architectural design Collective