A Simple Fix for Better Teamwork

Pat attention to social physics

Credit for this simple fix to improve teamwork goes to Alex “Sandy” Pentland, an MIT professor, who has devoted his career to studying interactions among people. He refers to his work as the study of “social physics” because he believes there are laws that guide our interactions that in some ways parallel the laws of physics. He says, “Just as the goal of traditional physics is to understand how the flow of energy translates into changes in motion, social physics seeks to understand how the flow of ideas and information translates into change in behavior.” By understanding the flow of ideas and information in social systems, Pentland says, we can predict the productivity of small groups, departments within companies and even entire cities.

So what is the simple fix Pentland discovered? In study after study, Pentland and his colleagues found the same thing. “Unexpectedly, we found that the factors most people usually think of as driving group performance – i.e., cohesion, motivation, and satisfaction – were not statistically significant. The largest factor predicting group intelligence was the equality of conversational turn taking; groups where a few people dominated the conversation were less collectively intelligent than those with a more equal distribution of conversational turn taking.” In other words, just make sure that everyone has roughly equal airtime. Duh.

Once you hear it, it makes perfect sense. The potential collective intelligence of any team is the sum of the individual intelligence of the members of the team, both pre-conversation and then as the intelligence of each person grows as a result of the conversation. To access all of that potential intelligence, we need to hear what each person thinks and then allow their thinking to influence everyone else’s. If only one or two people are doing all the talking, we will only have access to a fraction of the group’s total intelligence.

Now think about the executive team meetings or board meetings you have attended recently. How often has the conversation been evenly distributed? These groups are addressing the most important issues affecting an organization’s future yet most of the time, they operate at a fraction of their potential because members aren’t aware of the power of equal contribution.

A lack of awareness of this simple fix is a big part of the problem but it’s not the only one. Another problem is being able to actually track the amount of time each person speaks. People get caught up in their speaking and don’t realize how much airtime they are eating up. People who have been quiet may be frustrated with their inability to break in, but there is no process in the group to call attention to what is happening. Pentland and his team use badges that people wear to record interactions to capture the actual amount of time each person speaks. Senior teams and boards don’t have these, and even if they were to appoint someone to monitor their contributions, they would probably ignore the monitor’s inputs once the conversation gets energized. Powerful people feel entitled to talk when they want to and for as long as they want to.

That brings us to the third problem identified by Pentland and his team. Another important factor in determining team intelligence was the social intelligence of the team’s members. The more skilled members were at reading social signals such as frustration, anger, disagreement, or a desire to be let into the conversation, the smarter the team. That’s why teams with a higher percentage of women outperformed teams that were mostly male. If there was ever an argument for increasing the gender diversity of boards and top teams, this is it. Men have a tendency to be less considerate of other’s feelings than women. Male groups have been described as having a “male contest culture” in which the goal of each person is to win, even if it requires dominating others. Sometimes, winning can even become more important than making a good decision.

Evening out the contributions in team discussions is a simple fix for increasing the collective intelligence of the team. The result is better decision making, which in the long run means better organizational performance. Yet few teams adopt this fix either because they are unaware of it or won’t allow it to be implemented. What’s a CEO or board chair to do?

Setting the rules of engagement for meetings up front is easier than imposing new rules in the middle of a heated debate. Leaders can explain the findings of the research and suggest that the team or board try operating in accordance with them for a meeting or two to determine if they make a difference. Then, the CEO or board chair must assume the responsibility for keeping track of contributions and demanding more equal airtime be allowed. No one else will be permitted to shut people down or invite others in. This means that the CEO or chair will have to take themselves out of the conversation for the most part, so they don’t lose track of the social physics or become a part of the problem in their own right. This change in role is likely to seem strange to everyone at first but will serve as a reminder of the experiment that is underway.

After a meeting or two, the majority of group members should report that the quality of discussions has increased. Pentland has found that changing the social physics can account for up to half the variation in group performance, independent of personalities, demographics or other factors. Who couldn’t use a team that with this simple fix performs twice as well?

Naturally, like other new skills, this one needs repetition and reinforcement. Left to its own devices, the team will quickly return to its former way of operating. That doesn’t mean that the CEO or chair needs to stay out of the discussion; once the team learns how to alter its social physics, other members of the team can take turns monitoring the evenness of contributions. The CEO and chair just need to make certain this happens.