Together, everyone achieves more—or, less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams.

Abstract

This preregistered meta-analysis theoretically and empirically integrates the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams. Theoretically, we built on Shepperd’s (1993) framework of productivity loss in groups and Karau and Williams’ (1993) Collective Effort model (CEM) and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure model (TEEM), an extended Expectancy × Value framework with the explicit addition of an individual work baseline. Empirically, we included studies that allowed calculating a relevant effect size, which represents the difference between an individual’s effort under individual work and under teamwork conditions. Overall, we included 622 effect sizes (N = 320,632). We did not find a main effect of teamwork on effort. As predicted, however, multilevel modeling revealed that the (in-)dispensability of the own contribution to the team performance, social comparison potential, and evaluation potential moderated the effect of teamwork versus individual work on expended effort. Depending specifically on the level of (in-)dispensability and the potential to engage in social comparisons, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams. As predicted, we also found that people’s self-reports indicated effort gains when they had objectively shown such gains, whereas their self-reports did not indicate effort losses when they had shown such losses. Contrary to our hypotheses, team formation (i.e., ad hoc vs. not ad hoc teams) and task meaningfulness did not emerge as moderators. Altogether, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams depending on the specific design of teamwork. We discuss implications for future research, theory development, and teamwork design in practice.

Work Effort: A Conceptual and Meta-Analytic Review

“…Fifth, we included studies that measured effort and performance using different sources. 3 Sixth, we included studies that measured effort and the other constructs at the individual level (see Torka, Mazei, & Hüffmeier [2020] for a review of effort in team contexts). Seventh, we included studies based on independent samples.…”

In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty

“…The detrimental effect of group cohesion is most pronounced when decision speed is prioritized ( Gavrilets and Richerson, 2017 ; Yahosseini et al, 2018 ), as can be seen in phenomena like groupthink ( Janis, 1972 , 2008 ) or hidden-profile experiments ( Stasser and Titus, 2003 ). Recent research suggests that the context of a group or team likely determines whether group cohesion positively or negatively affects effort ( Torka et al, 2021 ) or group decision making ( Casey-Campbell and Martens, 2009 ). Perhaps paradoxically, it has been shown that individuals are more motivated to follow a group when they experience uncertainty ( Hogg, 2000 ), aggravating the already disadvantageous effect of group cohesion.…”

Sequential human redundancy: Can social loafing diminish the safety of double checks?

“…Karau and Williams (1993) integrated all these factors into what they dubbed the collective effort model (CEM) and suggested that all these factors influenced individual motivation by modifying the correlation between individual effort exerted and valued outcomes, given the general tendency of humans to try to maximize the utility of their actions. Interestingly, several studies that found a reduction of objective effort in group settings could not find a decrease in self-reported effort, suggesting that participants might not always be aware of their loafing, or might be hesitant to report it (Karau & Williams, 1993; Torka et al, 2021).…”