1. Making Groups Work Better Sandeep Krishnamurthy University of Washington, Bothell Business Program Retreat

2. Social Loafing Literature Classic study by Latane and colleagues (1986)- –Subjects were told that they were part of a study on “sensory feedback on noise production”. –Blindfolded and provided earplugs. –Told to make as much noise as possible by clapping and cheering. –One group told they were working in pairs, other group told they were working alone.

3. Social Loafing Literature Results- –Individuals who were told that they are working in pairs produced less noise! –When individuals were told that their individual performance would be measured even when they worked in groups, this effect disappeared!

4. Social Loafing Literature Defined as “reduction in individual effort when performing a collective task”. “Robust effect that generalizes across tasks and subject populations”.

5. Social loafing reduces when.. Task is meaningful, interdependent. Individuals feel they have a lot of influence on outcomes. Strong norms of reciprocity and fairness exist. Potential for evaluation on individual measures exists.

6. Modeling a Group Project Group of n greater than or equal to 2 individuals. Each individual chooses an effort level. Individual’s utility is derived from two sources- –Grade: Higher grade leads to higher utility –Disutility: Higher effort leads to lower utility

7. The Model Utility of individual i is given by- U i =  i G i - k i E i (1) where G i is the grade of individual i E i is the effort put in by individual i  i is how much joy i derives from higher grades k i reflects how much i hates to put in effort

8. The Final Model G i = f(  i E i ) where f is concave with decreasing returns. Notice your grade is determined by group effort, i.e., one grade for one group. Substituting in (1), the final model is- U i =  i f(  i E i ) - k i E i (2)

9. Seriousness Index Results depend upon a “seriousness index” which is defined as-  i /k i. Seriousness index for individual i will be high if she- –Cares a lot about high grades (i.e., high  i ) –Does not worry about working hard (i.e., low k i ) –Both

10. Results Scenario 1- Single Serious Individual –One person in a group has a seriousness index that is higher than the rest. –Here, this person does all the work and the others free-ride.

11. Results Scenario 2-Coalition of Serious Individuals –Two to n-1 students have a seriousness index that is higher than the rest. –Here, the two or more serious people form a coalition and do all the work. The others free- ride.

12. Optimal Situation Everybody has identical seriousness index- –Everybody puts in equal effort. –The level of effort by a single individual will be less than scenario 1 or scenario 2.

13. Other Results The difficulty of the assignment does not fundamentally alter the results. It is a moderating variable, i.e., it amplifies or dampens the level of the problem.

14. Implications of this Model Dysfunctional groups are those in which there is lot of heterogeneity in the seriousness index, i.e., here, some people are serious and others are not. Groups that work well have similar (either high or low) seriousness index values.

15. Implications of this Model In most groups, you can expect social loafing. Selection process of groups is important!!! I also find that increasing the level of grading individuals leads to greater effort.

16. Questions for Discussion How do you think social loafing can be reduced? What is the best way to select groups? How do you design an ideal peer evaluation system? Should you grade on individual components instead of the overall report? Do you think it is time to remove the group- work component in your class?