Workplace teams with “socially distinct” newcomers perform at a higher level than those comprised of people who have been working together for a while, or of people of similar backgrounds. This comes from research by Katie Liljenquist, reported by Sarah Boesveld in the Globe and Mail a couple weeks ago (a similar report on her research is here if you can’t access the Globe).
Newcomers are often in a position to voice disagreement and create tension, she says, which tends to lead to looking at issues in new ways or renewing focus on the task rather than “chatting about the weekend.”
In her study done with two co-authors, they asked undergraduate volunteers from fraternities and sororities who knew each other to solve mysteries in teams, with or without an outsider. Those without the outsider reported strong group cohesion and having lots of “fun” but did not solve the mysteries as fast or as well as those with an outsider. Those with the outsiders reported that their group lacked “cohesion” yet they performed better.
Liljenquist believes these results are important for managers who put people into teams. Those teams who self-report good social cohesion and spirit should perhaps be re-evaluated for their effectiveness. And, managers may wish to attempt deliberately to make teams more diverse in order to improve efficiency.
Your thoughts? Has the best work you’ve contributed to come from teams of buddies or teams of people less familiar with each other, from different backgrounds?
April 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
It would be interesting to investigate if the teams with an outsider perform better because they can’t socialize as much (less weekend related chatting) or because the outsider brings another perspective.
It could be both of course, but if the socializing factor is important maybe one can device collaborative approaches that dodges that problem. If it’s mostly about bringing in a new perspective then one can probably arrange work to leverage that too.
I tend to think that the outsider perspective is really important. Anyone know of a way to force yourself to bring just that to your team even when your an integrated part of it?
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I think that mixing up teams definitely reduces idle social chatting but in the same respect by working with people you are familiar with you’re in a position in which you already know the strength and weaknesses’ of others which can save valuable time as well as create a sense of trust within the group that the task will get completed. Throughout my masters I worked in teams for numerous deliverables. When we were permitted to choose groups I consciously opted to work with people whose strengths I was familiar with but did not socialize with personally. I found that this combination was perfect as I felt that our group underperformed when it was all friends or all complete strangers. In the study outlined above I wonder if there were any instances in which the newcomer experienced was simply excluded from the task due to existing cliquishness. I believe that the ability of the newcomer to bring innovation to the group heavily relies on whether he or she is able to command the attention of an audience or in this case, group.
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I personally believe I am at my greatest value to an organization or project within the first year of involvement, but especially within the first several months. The socializing aspect is important, but my most valuable asset in a new work environment is the ability to spot inefficiencies and the boldness to ask tough questions (diplomatically, of course) even if they are potentially critical of the existing process or mentality.
Unfortunately, I feel the LAST people most managers look to for insight into operations are new employees. Does anyone have any data on that?
April 24th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Great discussion. Damo — good question about whether HR and management professionals deliberately look to new people for new ideas — or if they publicly critique the new ideas because “that’s not the way we do things here.”
I haven’t read the whole study in question, Naiomi, so don’t know if their “outsiders” reported being excluded due to cliiquishness — which given the fraternity environment is more possible than it might be in a formal workplace. But the fact that outsiders’ groups did better than those without an outsider would suggest the outsider’s ideas were followed.
Pez – I think some aspects of “Group think” are hard to avoid as people tend to naturally develop subconscious patterns of behavior around others with whom they live or work. Everyone plays their role. But, I have known or had managers who were good at shaking things up, asking the provocative and uncomfortable questions, and challenging the status quo in other peoples’ patterns.
April 26th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
i’ve gone pretty deep into some similar OB research and found a good bit of contention on the whole insider/outsider, heterogeneous vs homogeneous team composition issue and how it affects group products.
Stasser and Stewart (1992) showed that there is a tendency for group members to overemphasize the common, universal information and to under-emphasize their unique and specialized knowledge. Furthermore, the effect is stronger in ad hoc groups where there is little or no familiarity between members (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). So according to those guys, it really is way less likely that an newcomer/outsider will be able to efficiently contribute to a new team.
Also, i did some work for the Air Force that suggested groups whose members are likely to have the most individualized, specialized knowledge find the informational gaps between themselves difficult to navigate, and end up being ineffective at pooling their combined resources anyway. So while individuals in homogenous groups might not have a ton of unique value to add, what they have will more likely be pooled with that of other members in a more meaningful and effective manner.
The I/O wonks will all tell you that group cohesiveness, familiarity and interpersonal knowledge with/of co-workers is a big time plus. not to say that there’s no value in shaking things up…
rob
April 27th, 2009 at 12:42 am
It seems fairly dangerous to generalize from this very specific configuration of a single outsider inserted into a tight-social (as opposed to professional) group, for the purpose of one-time puzzle solving.
It seems reasonable to suggest that for tasks that require diverse perspectives, or that would benefit from challenging of assumptions/normal approaches, that maximum homogeneity would not lead to optimal results. However, in some cases, it might be valuable. See, for example, the well-known-in-software-engineering anecdote of “The Black Team” http://a.mongers.org/clueful/20020402-peopleware-blackteam
An important question is how this translates into different team configurations (e.g., strong core, all previously independent, group sizes), different intensity of differences (age, ethnicity, language), and different & repeated task types (complexity, creativity, length).
April 29th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I think best work requires letting whoever makes up the group take responsibility for the outcome. I worked in not-for-profits for many years where resources were often slim to non existent. I thrived on the challenge of making things happen because I could. As a newcomer in a large institution it is mind numbing to adjust to the “norms” of the group who “chat about the weekend,” or don’t!