(Photo by Yuri Arcurs/iStockphoto)
To develop proposals for effective environmental policy, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) runs scenarios past lawyers, economists, scientists, and policy wonks, often multiple times. Each specialist’s input informs the next, until the team comes up with an idea that seems both economically feasible and environmentally acceptable. “No one person could do that,” says Lisa Moore, scientist at EDF, and that’s why she likes her job: “I just want to be part of a good team.” But Moore can be reluctant to rely on people, a mistrust she says is “kind of a strange characteristic to have as a through-and-through team player.”
New research suggests that this mistrust is not strange at all. In fact, it can boost team performance, says Erich Dierdorff, an assistant professor in the department of management at DePaul University. Dierdorff wanted to see whether more collectivist, group-oriented teams in fact do better work. His answer is a resounding yes.
Psychological collectivism has many facets, from how much people like or prioritize teamwork to how comfortable they are with relinquishing control. Dierdorff and colleagues showed that these facets have different effects on team performance at different times. As groups of three to six students in a capstone business course competed at running simulated companies, Dierdorff assessed each member’s collectivist tendencies and compared them to the team’s performance at the beginning and end of a several-week stint in the widget business.
“Teams that had more members who were higher in preference for group work and higher in concern for other people had better early performance,” says Dierdorff. When those teams cooperated well, high preference also increased final performance. Teams whose members tended to put group goals before their own performed better at the end, but no differently at the beginning. Whether people embraced group norms made little difference.
And reliance—the characteristic that Moore lacks— turned out to be bad for early performance. Whereas high-reliance people just figure the team will get it done, low-reliance people take more responsibility on themselves. As long as the members are cooperating well, low-reliance groups continue to succeed.
To the extent that the student simulation reflects real-world workplaces, practical lessons can be gleaned. Putting group objectives ahead of one’s own makes a big difference to the team’s success And the quality of cooperation can make or break the performance boost that collectivism offers. Training in cooperative exchange could turn groups that enjoy each other into groups that succeed together, and would especially benefit those who are least comfortable relying on others—because “at some point, with a good team, you let go of that distrust,” says Moore.
Read more stories by Jessica Ruvinsky.