Collective intelligence in small teams

An article appearing on Kurzweil's blog discusses a recent study by MIT researchers on the effectiveness of teams, and the make-up of those teams in solving problems. The conclusion was that small teams with the right kind of internal dynamics perform well on a wide range of assignments having potential applications for business and other organizations. The caveat, of course, is the right kind of dynamics. Groups whose members had higher levels of "social sensitivity" — the willingness of the group to let all of its members take turns and apply their skills to a given challenge — were more collectively intelligent. Groups where one person dominated were less intelligent than groups where tasks were more evenly distributed. It was also suggested that women tended to be more empathetic and helped to balance the group.

Over the summer, I was involved in a residency program where small groups (in my case 4 people) were assigned clients and projects. My group happened to be three women and me (a guy). I can attest to the fact that even though there was quite a bit of friction, the outcome was far better than any of us could have acheived individually — to an amazing extent. We all approached the project from different perspectives with our own checklists of what features were mandatory for the project's success. After initial conflict, and some agreement on direction, we each found our places and natural strengths. As it turned out my partners were quite amazing — an appreciation that wasn't initially apparent. But in truth, without a good bit of give and take — and blind trust — it could have been a disaster.

Another conclusion of the study was that a group's collective intelligence accounted for 30 to 40 percent of the variation in performance, and that individual intelligence of group members didn't necessarily determine the effectiveness of the group. Having a bunch of smart people in a group doesn’t necessarily make the group smart.