Group & Organizational Learning

Learning Curves

• Groups & organizations groups get better at production, the more production they do, with most benefit early on• Developing routines & standard operating procedures to

increase efficiency• E.g. Regular meeting times

• Learning task-specific knowledge and skills • E.g., Familiarity effects

• Learning team specific knowledge, attitudes & skills• E.g., Learning teammate’s strengths & weaknesses

• Learning general teamwork knowledge, attitudes & skills• E.g., How to run a meeting, delegation, planning, info-

sharing

Learning occurs with production:Empirical learning curves• Reduction in labor hours as cumulative output doubles

– Large variability in improvement– Median is 20% decrease with doubling of production

• Increase in quality as cumulative output doubles

Learning curve: Unit cost of production declines with increased production, but at a declining rate

Efficiency or Effectiveness=Constant x Cumulative Production-b

Typically ~20% decrease in cost as cumulative production doubles (with substantial variation)

Learning Curve: Formula

Learning curves happen at multiple levels

• Organization/Firm• Factory/Location• Shift within a plant• Work group• Individual worker

Surgeons Performing Heart Bypass Surgery

• Cardiac surgeons with privileges at multiple hospitals

• What is the impact of more experience?– Overall?– Within a hospital– Between hospital

• All coronary artery bypass surgeries, PA, 1994

Average Probability of Mortality After Surgery 1.770%

Impact of 1 SD increase in total surgeries -0.015%

Impact of 1 SD increase in same hospital surgeries -0.018%

Impact of 1 SD increase in different hospital surgeries -0.001%

Huckman, R., Pisano, G., Research, D. o., & School, H. B. (2006). The Firm Specificity of Individual Performance: Evidence from Cardiac Surgery. Management Science, 52(4), 473.

Predicting efficiency of an operation from experience of hospital, team & docs

• Tested in context of total joint replacement surgery groups (hip & elbow)

• The more each individual in the team has performed the surgery, a team have performed the surgery together & the more they do this in a hospital that does lots of surgeries, the more quickly the operation goes

Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869-881.

Joint Replacement Surgery(Reagans, Argote, Brooks, 2005)

• Controls are sensibleOperations take longer with older males, hip (vs. elbow) replacement, tumors, complications

• Experience improves speed of surgery

• Organizational: 100 transplants 18% reduction in time to complete (~34 minutes)

• Team: 10 transplants together 5% reduction (~ 10 min)

• Individual: Experience increases time for 1st five transplants and then decreases time

Speed for new minimally invasive cardiac surgery

Pisano, G. P., Bohmer, R. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Science, 47(6), 752-768.

Time to complete surgery by hospital experience

• Overall learning at hospital level (5% improvement with doubling of # of operations)

• Large differences in rate of learning btw hospitals(M goes from 500 minutes to 132, while average is fm 290 minutes to 210))

Why did hospital M learn faster than a typical team?Hospital M learned faster than average• Team hand-picked for training by adopting surgeon

based on prior experience working together

• Adopting surgeon met with all other surgeons in cardiac unit. Perfusionist met with operating room nurse & anesthesiologist to discuss procedure. Surgeon has weekly discussions with cardiologists.

• Initial team performed first 15 operations before any rotation. New team members had to observe 4 & be mentored on 2 before joining.

• Adopting surgeon encouraged team coordination (e.g., feedback)

Hospital R learned slower than average• Initial team based on who was available

• No attempt to introduce procedure to other clinical groups or meeting to discuss cases ahead of time.

• Only 3 of 4 in first operation had training. Turnover in next 6 cases.

• Little teamwork. "We don't have any real teams here. It's just who gets assigned on any given day” “The nurses are interchangeable. We know our ‘little jog’ and don’t really know what the other people are doing.

Prep

arat

ion

Cro

ss d

ept

coor

dina

tion

Stab

ility

Team

wor

k

What is it that groups learn from working together?

• Reprise of Ginnett paper on flight crews:

– Explicit expectations about procedures & rationale– Explicit division of labor/hierarchy – Demonstrating personal attributes– Demonstrating positive attributes trust – Development of personal social relationships– Transactive memory: Knowledge of what each crew

member is good at

Team vs. Individual Level Training• Groups trained to assemble a

radio– Subjects trained individually– Or in a group training

• Tested in group setting• Group trained together did

better than those trained individual

Liang, D., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384-393.

Argote & Moreland: Subsequent research

• Motivation isn’t the cause• People trained individually & then given a group

building exercise were no better than people trained alone

• Learning to work in teams-in-general isn’t the cause• People trained in one group and then moved to

another were no better than people trained alone

Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (2002). Training people to work in groups. Theory and research on small groups, 37-60.

Argote & Moreland: Subsequent research

• Motivation isn’t the cause• People trained individually & then given a group building

exercise were no better than people trained alone• Learning to work in teams-in-general isn’t the cause

• People trained in one group and then moved to another were no better than people trained alone

• Only strong effect comes from training & performing in the same group• Transactive memory seems to be the cause• Groups trained together know each others’ strength &

weakness & assign tasks accurately

Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (2002). Training people to work in groups. Theory and research on small groups, 37-60.

Effects of group turnover• Lab experiment – Origami task• Turnover: 3-person groups with constant or changing

membership

• Teams got better with experience• Experience benefited intact teams more

Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A. A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(6), 512-529.

Familiarity is not always positive

• Groups can also stagnate: E.g., productivity of a research group peaks after 3-5 years of being together

• Katz (1982) – Performance (rated by managers) of 50 R&D teams– Tenure = average time people worked in group.

Benefits to turnover: Brings new ideas into the group• Six students come to lab for 10 minute intro & split into 3-

person training & groups• Knowledge quality: Team trained in efficient (7-fold) or

less efficient (12 fold) production• Superordinate identity or not:

Superordinate identity

No Superordinate identity

Symbols Single name, colors & pens for 6-person group

Distinct team names, colors & pens for 3-person team

Location 6 interspersed around table

2 team on different sides of table

Reward interdependence

Subjects got a $10 bonus if 6-person group met quota

Subjects got a $10 bonus if 3-person team met quota

Effects on knowledge transfer• A group with a poor strategy will accept better ideas

from a new• But primarily if they see themselves as having a

common identity

Rotating member has superior routine

Rotating member has inferior routine

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Superordinate identity

No superordinate identity

% a

dopt

ing

the

rota

ting

mem

ber's

rout

ine

Effects on production• A group with a poor strategy will improve performance

if they gain a member with better ideas• But primarily if they see themselves as having a

common identity

Rotating member has supe-rior routine

Rotating member has inferior routine

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Superordinate identity

No superordinate identity

Gro

up p

rodu

ctio

n (p

rodu

cts

mad

e)

Summary: What teams learn as they work together• Group-specific knowledge

– Task– People– Environment

• General teamwork– Ways to organize– Planning– Appropriate amount of communication– Team-appropriate attitudes

• Learning at both the individual and group levels– Transactive memory: e.g., Individual manager learns that person A is good

with complex problems but, doesn’t finish projects on deadline– Group learning:

• E.g., Routines such as aviation checklists– Technology: e.g., Group decides to physically organize so people who

coordinate most are close by