Management research has suggested that consensus (interacting) groups exhibit superior performance on many organizational tasks such as selecting R&D proposals for funding, planning innovative projects, and exercising quality control during implementation. The objective of this research was to investigate or not the already good performance of consensus groups on project planning tasks could be further improved by a diagnosis and feedback intervention concerning the nature of a group's rational and interpersonal processes. Data from a total of 114 groups (547 individuals) were collected. Feedback on rational processes had a more significant impact on performance than did feedback on interpersonal processes, but only for high-ability groups. The implications of these findings for project management are discussed. >

Teamwork in planning innovative projects: improving group performance by rational and interpersonal interventions in group process

An extensive amount of research has focused on the relative performance of groups versus individuals in problem-solving situations. The results of this research have been inconsistent. To some exte...

Estimating the Difference Between Group Versus Individual Performance on Problem-Solving Tasks:

Moving in time with others is a central characteristic of social life and has been shown to promote a host of social-cognitive attunements (e.g., person memory, affiliation, prosociality) for those involved. Less attention has been paid, however, to how the effects of coordination can serve higher-order goal-directed social behaviour. Here we explored whether interpersonal synchrony impacts performance on a collaborative problem-solving task. One hundred and ninety two participants completed a short movement exercise in pairs whereby coordination mode was manipulated (in-phase synchrony, asynchrony, control). Each pair then jointly discussed a problem-solving exercise while the degree to which coordination spontaneously emerged was assessed. The results revealed that collaboration was more effective following in-phase coordination. Of theoretical significance, both instructed and spontaneous synchrony were associated with better performance, with the short-term history of each dyad shaping precisely when coordination was functional. Overall, the synchronization of body movements appears to support effective collaboration.

/pdf/coordination-matters-interpersonal-synchrony-influences-1jvqf51y3o.pdf

Coordination Matters: Interpersonal Synchrony Influences Collaborative Problem-Solving

An algorithm (termed CONFIDE) is proposed that may capture many of the benefits of group decision making without the necessity of face-to-face interaction. The algorithm allows individual decision makers to differentially weight the contributions from members according to the confidence with which each member holds to their opinions. The CONFIDE algorithm is compared to both face-to-face group decisions and simple averaging of group members opinions on the Lost-at-Sea ranking task. Results indicate that, in terms of decision quality, the CONFIDE algorithm produces solutions equal to that of the face-to-face group decision method and significantly better than the solution achieved by simple averaging of group members responses.

CONFIDE: A Collective Decision-Making Procedure Using Confidence Estimates of Individual Judgements

This article describes the results of a survey study in the mining industry in northeastern Ontario, Canada, to determine if the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Project Planning Situatio...

The Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator and its Usefulness for Problem Solving by Mining Industry Personnel

The NASA ranking task and similar ranking activities used to demonstrate the superiority of group thinking are examined both analytically and by means of a computer simulation for fairness of the scoring algorithm. It is argued that the current scores cannot be used to prove the superiority of group-consensus decision making in either training or research settings. Recommendations are given for an improved modified scoring format and a discussion is presented concerning situations in which group consensus may not be desirable, based on the individual resources of the group members.

Dennis P. Slevin

Papers

Observations on the Invalid Scoring Algorithm of "NASA" and Similar Consensus Tasks