Re Conceptualizing Group Performance

8/8/2019 Re Conceptualizing Group Performance

1/6

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 150(6), 706710

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

BOOK REVIEW

Reconceptualizing Group Performance: AReview ofIn Search of Synergy in Small

Group Performance

NORBERT L. KERRMichigan State University

In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance by James R. Larson, Jr. New

York, NY: Psychology Press, 2010. 427 pp. ISBN 978-0-8058-5943-0. $90.00,

hardcover. ISBN 978-0-8058-5944-7. $49.95, paperback.

IN 1972 IVAN STEINER PUBLISHED a landmark text, Group Process and

Productivity. It was a game changer in the study of group performance. It

shifted the fields attention away from a traditional but ultimately not very fer-

tile questionWhich is more productive, isolated individuals or people working

with others?to a much more informative questionWhen and why do groups

fail to perform as well as they can? Steiner recognized that in order to address

the latter question, one had to analyze carefully just what a group was being asked

to dowhat the demands of the group task were. To that end, he offered a typol-ogy of group tasks; at the core of this typology were some of the different ways

that group tasks permitted and prescribed group members to combine their task

relevant resources (their knowledge, skills, and abilities) in order to achieve a

group product. He also suggested that groups could fall short of their potential

due to at least two generic reasonsfailures to optimally coordinate their efforts

or suboptimal motivation.

Steiners book shaped the agenda for the next few decades research on

group performance. For example, as it inadvertently dampened interest in the

direct observation of interaction in performance groups (cf. Moreland et al.,


2/6

Kerr 707

2010), it promoted social combination models of group performance and deci-

sion making (cf. Davis, 1973; Laughlin, 1980). The latter models attempted to

understand group performance in terms of the functions or combination rulesthat best summarized how groups got from what members brought to group

interaction (their pre-interaction task-relevant resources and preferences) to what

groups produced. And it set the stage for an impressive body of research

demonstrating motivation losses or social loafing in performance groups (e.g.,

Karau & Williams, 1993).

Now, in 2010, James R. Larson Jr. brings us In Search of Synergya worthy

successor to Steiners seminal text. Larson, a social and organizational psychol-

ogist at Loyola University Chicago, self-consciously contrasts his approach with

Steiners. Steiner assumed that it was possible to unambiguously specify groupspotential productivity (PP) at least for most simple tasks, that in principle groups

could not surpass that PP baseline, and that in practice groups routinely fell below

that baseline. One consequence was that the study of group performance became

a search for ways to mitigate process losses, resulting in an unrealistically pes-

simistic view of groups or teams as performers. Larson persuasively argues that it

is often not possible to identify unambiguously Steiners PP, but that there are (at

least) two sensible and informative baselines that can usually be identifiedviz.

the performance of the typical and of the best group membersand that a care-

ful inspection of the research literature suggests that groups can and do surpassour expectations based on that typical member (demonstrating weak synergy) or,

more rarely, even that best member (demonstrating strong synergy).

The book has three main sections. In the first two chapters, Larson lays

the groundwork for the rest of the book. The first chapter defines basic con-

cepts (e.g., small group; synergy, a term that has been widely but carelessly used

in much prior writing), gives a historical overview of the area (e.g., Steiners

approach), and previews the rest of the book. The second chapter focuses on

group tasksjust what groups are asked to do. In my judgment, the most per-

nicious and ingrained blindness in the group/team/organizational performanceliteratures is the assumption that one group task is much like another, that phe-

nomena observed with one group task will readily generalize most other tasks.

Steiner, Larson, and most other serious scholars strongly challenge this assump-

tion and argue that group performance, and the possibility of synergy, can be

meaningfully understood only in terms of what the group has been asked to do

(p. 23). In Chapter 2, Larson provides useful definitions and distinctions (e.g.,

of group task, subtask, and performance aggregates) and reviews (and critiques)

the more important attempts at classifying group tasks (by M. Shaw, I. Steiner,

P. Laughlin, and J. McGrath).In Chapters 36, Larson reviews the literatures for four task domains that are

l hi h f d h d h h i


3/6

708 The Journal of Social Psychology

can, in principle, be demonstrated within the group to be correct (within some

shared conceptual scheme, like propositional logic or the rules of mathematics).

Special attention is given to work analyzing group performance using social com-bination models like the classic Lorge-Solomon (1955) truth-wins model or

J. Davis (1973) social decision scheme (SDS) model, and to P. Laughlins sys-

tematic programs of research on collective induction and the letters-to-numbers

problem. Chapter 5 considers group judgment tasks, where there may be a

correct answer, but its correctness is difficult to impossible to demonstrate

within the group (e.g., forecasts of future events). Finally, in Chapter 6, Larson

considers group decision-making tasks where group members must choose among

a (usually small) number of alternatives (e.g., a jury seeking a verdict). Typically,

there is no demonstrably correct answer for these tasks (e.g., the correct verdictis unknowable in most trials). Therefore, it becomes difficult to quantify perfor-

mance quality (and, hence, to meaningfully document synergy). However, Larson

does identify two interesting, synergy-relevant exceptions(1) groups relative

susceptibility to judgmental biases and heuristics and (2) a groups ability to thor-

oughly pool all the information available to its members. For the latter topic, there

is a complex but fascinating literature, one to which Larson himself has made

many significant contributions.

The third main section is Chapters 79. In these chapters, Larson considers

three topics that cut-across task types. Chapter 7 considers several aspectsof group learning and memoryhow interaction among group members can

alter the rate of learning; how, when, and why groups can recall more than

their typical or best members; and the development and functioning of group

transactive memories, systems for dividing the cognitive labor associated with

acquiring, storing, and retrieving task-relevant information (p. 255). Chapter 8

considers group member task motivation. He reviews the older literature doc-

umenting processes that (for certain group tasks) result in group motivation

losses, but given the theme of the book, devotes considerable attention to

newer work documenting the possibility of enhanced motivation in group per-formance contexts. Finally, in Chapter 9 Larson takes up the effects of group

composition on group performance; specifically, he asks whether and when

a groups performance is enhanced or hindered by diversity among its mem-

bers. He proposes a simple model that sheds light on the direct and indirect

effects of both surface diversity (e.g., demographic heterogeneity) and deep

diversity (e.g., heterogeneity in knowledge, perspective, or problem-solving

strategy).

In each of Chapters 39, Larson provides a thorough review of the relevant

literatures, noting where there is evidence of process loss, weak synergy, and (ina few interesting instances) strong synergy. He also explicitly identifies many

i i di i f f h Th ifi d i


4/6

Kerr 709

for the need for more and better theory, methods, and research on (1) under-

standing the psychologically-important features of group tasks, (2) observing

and analyzing the actual interaction occurring among group members, and(3) tracing the development of group dynamics across the full life-span of

groups.

Steiners classic book was influential not only because of its generative ideas,

but also because it was so well and persuasively written. In Search of Synergy is

also beautifully written. Although the material is often dense and detailed, the

writing is clear and relatively jargon-free. This is noteworthy because some of the

concepts and the studies reviewed are complex. Larson also has a real knack for

inventing excellent concrete examples to illustrate key ideas. An example that runs

through the book is the task of pairs of speed cyclists who can, by taking turns cre-ating drafts to pull one another along, finish the race with a better time than either

of them could achieve individually (an instance of strong synergy). The book is

also filled with historical tidbits that give the work a more human flavor and give

the research some useful context (e.g., the roots of Osbornes ideas on brainstorm-

ing). Larsons scholarship is also remarkably deep and wide. He casts a wide net,

pulling in material not only from his home disciplines (social and organizational

psychology) but also from many other disciplines (e.g., cognitive psychology,

education, computational modeling, human-computer interaction, group decision

systems). For the topics I (thought I) knew well (e.g., the work on group prob-lem solving and group motivation), the text was both very accurate and full of

provocative new ideas. And for the topics I was less familiar with (e.g., the work

on group learning and memory; the work on group diversity), the presentation

was accessible and illuminating.

I found few errors of commission, and the few arguable errors of omis-

sion I detected could be chalked up to my own idiosyncratic (and self-serving)

preferences [e.g., I would have expected more coverage of motivation losses

stemming from equity-seeking (e.g., Kerr, 1983), and of SDS analyses of the

susceptibility of groups to judgmental biases (e.g., Kerr, MacCoun, & Kramer,1996)]. Be warned, though, that this is a high-level treatment of the mate-

rial. It will be of greatest interest and use to scholars of group processes,

especially those with abiding research interests in group/team productivity. It

is reasonably accessible to and could be read with profit by graduate stu-

dents and even by capable, well-motivated undergraduate students. However,

for the generic modern undergraduate to whom introductory texts and lectures

are increasingly geared (i.e., those with attention spans numbered in seconds

rather than minutes or hours), it is likely to be experienced as rather heavy

sledding.Larson (2010) will not, I suspect, supplant Steiner (1972), nor is that really

i l B I l h i ld h h i h h


5/6

710 The Journal of Social Psychology

AUTHOR NOTE

Norbert L. Kerr is professor of psychology and adjunct professor of law atMichigan State University and an honorary professor of the School of Psychology

at the University of Kent in Canterbury.His primary research interests are in group

performance and decision making, psychology and the law, social dilemmas, and

social exclusion.

REFERENCES

Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decisionschemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97125.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review andtheoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681706.

Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in task-performing groups: A social dilemmaanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819828.

Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R., & Kramer, G. P. (1996) Bias in judgment: Comparingindividuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687719.

Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination process of cooperative, problem-solvinggroups at verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology(Volume 1), Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems. Psychometrika, 20, 139148.

Moreland, R. L., Fetterman, J. D., Flagg, J. J.., & Swanenburg, K. L. (2010). Behavioralassessment practices among social psychologists who study small groups. In C. R.Agnew, D. E. Carlston, W. G. Graziano, & J. R. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs:Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 2856). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.


6/6

Copyright of Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Re Conceptualizing Group Performance