The Efficiency of Small Human Groups in the Solution of Problems Requiring Genuine Co‐operation*

McCurdy, Harold G.; Lambert, Wallace E.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1952.tb01123.x

Cited by 42 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One member can block a group which cannot convert him, compromise with him, or expel the member from the group. In such chains, such as when subjects had to coordinate completely an interlocking system of levers to turn on lights of a group maze, the typical group did worse than its average member working alone (McCurdy and Lambert, 1952). Presumably the more varied in abilities of the members in such circumstances, the more likely the group to contain an extremely poor member who would drag the performance of the group down to his level (Bass and Ryterband, 1978).…”

Section: Properties Of the Team Per Se And Team Performancementioning

confidence: 98%

Team Productivity and Individual Member Competence

Bass

1980

Small Group Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThis report provides a framework for examining in detail what we know and what we do not know about how the distribution of available individual capabilities on a team, the distribution of role assignments, and the organization of the parallel distributions of roles and individual capabilities contribute to team productivity. A list of classes of variables that may affect team productivity is reviewed along with the available correlational evidence. Then a more complex model, linking the classes of variables on the list, is discussed. This model describes what is logical to expect. Finally, the empirical evidence is presented to support the model's linkages, along with suggestions and implications for immediate applications as well as more basic research requirements. AUTHOR'S NOTE On occasion, SGB pubhshes unusually long articles on topics of special importance. Thefollowing is an example of this genre. Here, Bernard M Bass, whose massive Handbook of Leadership (revised) will soon make its appearance, considers m depth a wide range of issues relating to teams-groups of individuals contributing their talents to shared tasks. The article's focus ranges from the expenmental and empirical to the conceptual and genenc. In addition to its applications to committee process and work groups, Bass's effort proves relevant to aspects of group analysis and group psychotherapy, and to development of improved learning and social service systems -F. M. Downloaded from 432 Work in teams is commonplace at all levels of all types of organizations. Why? The first reason is that modern technology usually makes it difficult for one person to assemble, organize, and digest the facts necessary to make an appropriate decision or complete an operation. Individuals very often find themselves forced to depend on their peers in order to complete their mutual tasks successfully. An operator of a new electrocardiogram unit in a hospital may be puzzled about the unusual behavior of an instrument metering the input of voltage. Consultation may be needed with the hospital electrician, a cardiologist from the medical staff and other instrument operators, the supervisor, and possibly also a representative of the firm that sells and services the machine. A meeting may be called to discuss the problem. No one person may have the knowledge or capability to deal with the problem alone (Bass and Ryterband, 1978).Thus, it is not surprising that eight or nine out of ten companies with more than 250 employees report regular use of committees: 50% of lower-middle management, 76% of uppermiddle management, and 81% of top management among several thousand readers of the Harvard Business Review report that they serve on standing committees in their organization. Only 8% of all respondents would abolish them (Tillman, 1960). A majority sees committees as the best way to ensure informed decisions, to promote creativity through the exchange of ideas, and to coordinate departments. Yet, a majority also believes committees waste too much time. There i...

show abstract

Section: Properties Of the Team Per Se And Team Performancementioning

confidence: 98%

Team Productivity and Individual Member Competence

Bass

1980

Small Group Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, some studies found null effects of hierarchy steepness. McCurdy and Lambert (1952), as well as McCurdy and Eber (1953) manipulated whether groups had an appointed leader or not when they worked on a light--switching task in which subjects were asked to turn a switch as fast as possible when given the signal. They found no differences in performance between groups in which one member was appointed the leader, and groups in which all three members presumably had equal influence.…”

Section: Enduring Mysteries About Status Hierarchies In Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micropolitics: A New Model of Status Hierarchies in Teams

Anderson¹,

Kennedy²

2012

Research on Managing Groups and Teams

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, we review the research on status hierarchies in groups and teams to assess the relative validity of two major models-the dominance and functionalist theories of status hierarchies. We find that these models cannot fully account for empirical evidence in the literature, and thus propose a new model of status hierarchies, Micropolitics. Methodology/approach We examine the relative validity of current major theories by reviewing the literature on status hierarchies in groups. Findings We find that, although most of the literature supports the functionalist theory of status hierarchies, this theory cannot explain some of the existing empirical evidence. Drawing on both functionalist and dominance perspectives, we propose a new theory of status, the Micropolitics model, to account for this evidence. Specifically, we propose that in the "micro" context of groups and teams, individuals attain status by convincing their group that they possess the skills and abilities needed to take charge-just as political candidates must convince voters they are the right people for the job.

show abstract

“…Quelques années plus tôt, McCurdy et Lambert (1952) ont simulé au laboratoire une situation rappelant la chaîne d'assemblage d'une usine d'automobiles, où l'erreur commise par un membre entraîne l'échec du groupe. En comparant les performances du groupe à celles des individus, ils observent que ces derniers ré-ussissent mieux que les premiers.…”

Section: Les Individus Et Les Groupes Iunclassified

Dissensions et consensus

Moscovici¹,

Doise²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Efficiency of Small Human Groups in the Solution of Problems Requiring Genuine Co‐operation*

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

Team Productivity and Individual Member Competence

Team Productivity and Individual Member Competence

Micropolitics: A New Model of Status Hierarchies in Teams

Dissensions et consensus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About