Comments on: The Value of Those Who “Stand Out”

By: deborah

deborah — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:11:24 +0000

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!

By: Fraser

Fraser — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:42:56 +0000

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).

By: Rob Forster

Rob Forster — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:32:36 +0000

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

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:57:44 +0000

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.

By: Damo

Damo — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:39:45 +0000

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?

By: Naomi

Naomi — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:43:50 +0000

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.

By: PEZ

PEZ — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:25:44 +0000

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?