COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN SCIENTIFIC TEAMS

Transcription

1 COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN SCIENTIFIC TEAMS MAY 2018 PRESENTED TO Science of Team Science Conference 2018 PRESENTED BY Anita Williams Woolley Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Theory Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business

2 Teams in the U.S. Intelligence Community OPERATION MALEDICTA: TARGET 2 -- SEABROOK 2

3 EXPERTISE DIVERSITY PERFORMANCE * -1 Generalists Subject Matter Experts 3 Woolley, Gerbasi, Chabris, Kosslyn & Hackman, 2008 *p <.05, two-tailed 2017

4 The g-factor for individuals Visual Spatial g Verbal Quantitative 4

5 A C-FACTOR for teams? Motivation Opportunity C Individual ability Resources 5

6 A C-FACTOR for team performance TASK 1.32* Average IQ TASK 2.36*.08 TASK 3.72**.57* Collective Intelligence.51** Video Game Score TASK 4.69* TASK 5 6 Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi & Malone, Science, 2010

7 Predictive Value of CI and Individual Intelligence 0.6 Study 1: Video game Study 2: Architectural design GROUP PERFORMANCE Collective Intelligence 0.0 Maximum Member Intelligence Average Member Intelligence 7 Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi & Malone, 2010

8 What Leads to Smart Groups? SMART GROUPS NOT GROUP SATISF ACTION (r = -.07) COHESION (r = -.12) MOTIVATION (r = -.01) 8

9 What Leads to Smart Groups? Good Collaboration Right Goals Right People 9

10 Women and Collective Intelligence MEAN COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE Avg CI ALL MALE MAJORITY MALE 50/50 MAJORITY FEMALE ALL FEMALE TEAM GENDER COMPOSITION Error bars: 95% confidence interval 10

11 Social Perceptiveness Playful Comforting Irritated Bored Reading the Mind in the Eyes Baron-Cohen et al., 2001

12 Social Perceptiveness Comforting Bored Irritated Playful Reading 12 the Mind in the Eyes Baron-Cohen et al., 2001

13 What Leads to Smart Groups? Good Collaboration Right Goals Social Perceptiveness Right People 13

14 Team Size Understaffed versus Overstaffed Teams that are too large Have more social loafing problems... Experience greater coordination loss... Provide fewer opportunities for each individual to contribute

15 Distribution of Participation 50 Percent of total acts Source: Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill: 170. Reprinted with permission.

16 What Kind of Diversity Matters? SURFACE-LEVEL DIVERSITY Observable characteristics that lead to the creation of social categories (gender, race, etc.) DEEP-LEVEL DIVERSITY Underlying differences in perspectives, opinions, information, and values (religion, political affiliation, professional training, etc.) 16

17 Top Brain, Bottom Brain Top Brain Bottom Brain 17 Top Brain, Bottom Brain: Harnessing the power of four cognitive modes by Stephen Kosslyn and Wayne Miller (2013)

18 Cognitive Styles Verbalization Spatial Visualization Large : Big Triumph: (1) Small (2) Success (3) Lose Object Visualization 18

19 Cognitive Styles Verbalization Spatial Visualization Object Visualization 19

20 Cognitive Style Diversity & CI 4.00 COLLECTIVE IN TELLIGENCE COGNITIVE DIVERSITY 20 Aggarwal, Woolley, Chabris, & Malone, under review

21 Contingency Variable: Task Type Exploration and Innovation Efficiency and implementation of known solutions

22 What Leads to Smart Groups? Good Collaboration Right Goals Social Perceptiveness Cognitive Diversity Right People 22

23 Goals must be Clear Specific Challenging

24 The Importance of Clear Purpose "It's OK to spend a lot of time arguing about which route to take to San Francisco when everyone wants to end up there, but a lot of time gets wasted in such arguments if one person wants to go to San Francisco and another secretly wants to go to San Diego" -Steve Jobs (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy & Bourgois, HBR 1997 p. 80)

25 Challenging Goals Goal Difficulty and Task Performance Easy Moderate Difficult Impossible Task Performance Intensity and Persistence Maximized Goal Difficulty

26 Specifying Means vs. Ends ENDS SPECIFIED? NO YES NO UNFOCUSED OUTCOME FOCUSED MEANS SPECIFIED? YES PROCESS FOCUSED MICRO MANAGEMENT 26

27 Process- vs. Outcome Focused Teams PROCESS-FOCUSED TEAMS emphasize schedule, tasks, roles first subordinate outcomes to process OUTCOME-FOCUSED TEAMS emphasize desired outcomes first subordinate process to outcomes 27

28 Creative Team Performance Performance Unfocused Process-focused Outcome-focused 28 Woolley, A.W. (2009)

29 Commission of Errors Errors High Process Focus Low Process Focus 29 Aggarwal & Woolley, 2013

30 When is Each Desirable? PROCESS FOCUSED OUTCOME FOCUSED When task requires: Impartiality Error prevention Comprehensiveness When task requires: Innovation Insight Identifying priorities Examples: Audits Carrying out scientific studies Jury trials Examples: Finding a research question Crafting new strategy Product development Planning is important for both, it s the nature of the planning that changes! 30

31 Cognitive Diversity and Process Focus Spatial-Spatial Spatial-Object Object-Object *p< Aggarwal & Woolley, 2013

32 Strategic Orientation and Process Focus Offense Defense 32 Woolley, Bear, Chang & DeCostanza, 2013

33 What Leads to Smart Groups? Good Collaboration Balancing Process and Outcome Focus Right Goals Social Perceptiveness Cognitive Diversity Right People 33

34 CI and Communication Sociometric Badge Uneven distribution in speaking turns negatively predicts c 34 Woolley et al., 2010

35 Communication Online Better groups chat more Better groups participate more equally Engel, 35 Woolley, Jing, Chabris & Malone, 2014

36 What Leads to Smart Groups? High Level and Equality of Communication Integration Good Collaboration Balancing Process and Outcome Focus Right Goals Social Perceptiveness Cognitive Diversity Right People 36

37 Expertise Diversity & Integration 1.25 * PERFORMANCE * Generalists Subject Matter Experts No Exercise Integration Exercise No Exercise Integration Exercise *p <.05, two-tailed 37 Woolley, Gerbasi, Chabris, Kosslyn & Hackman, 2008

38 Interdependence RECIPROCAL INTERDEPENDENCE Basketball Integration P1 P2 P3 SEQUENTIAL INTERDEPENDENCE American Football Accuracy P1 P2 P3 X PRODUCT POOLED INTERDEPENDENCE Swimming Efficiency GROUP MEMBERS x PRODUCT 38 Adapted from J. Thompson, 1967

39 What undermines integration in teams? Functional Silos Too many team assignments Unclear who is on the team Faultlines 39

40 Something to keep an eye out for: Faultlines Paris Singapore French Singaporean Sales Engineering Different on 1, 2, 3 dimensions Similar on 1, 2, 3 dimensions Geographic Cultural Linguistic Temporal Technological Organizational 2017

41 What Leads to Smart Groups? High Level and Equality of Communication Integration Good Collaboration Balancing Process and Outcome Focus Right Goals Social Perceptiveness Cognitive Diversity Right People 41

42 Do Key Ingredients Matter? Answer: Yes, a great deal PERCENT OF PERFORMANCE VARIATION CONTROLLED 70+% 50+% STUDY Empirical study of 64 analytic teams in six intelligence agencies International study of 120+ senior leadership teams 42 (Hackman & O Connor, 2004 ) AND (Wageman, Nunes, Burruss, & Hackman, 2008)

43 Rule 60% of a team s effectiveness is determined by conditions that can be put in place before the team even convenes 30% is determined by activities that go on at the team s launch meeting 10% is determined by what the leader does after the team is already underway with its work Hackman, 2011

44 Study: A Simple Surgery Checklist Saves Lives 44

45 EXAMPLE: LOCKHEED SKUNK WORKS 2017

46 What Leads to Smart Groups? High Level and Equality of Communication Integration Good Collaboration Balancing Process and Outcome Focus Right Goals Social Perceptiveness Cognitive Diversity Right People 46

47 Key Conclusions Collectives are characterized by a stable level of intelligence To create the conditions for CI to develop, leaders must: Leaders can lay the groundwork for a team to succeed even before their very first meeting RECRUIT THE RIGHT MIX OF PEOPLE CLEARLY AND CORRECTLY SPECIFY THE GOAL SET NORMS AND STRUCTURE WORK SO THAT TEAM ACHIEVES A HIGH LEVEL OF INTEGRATION 47

48 THANK YOU! Anita Williams Woolley 48

49 REFERENCES Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2013). Do you see what I see? The effect of members cognitive styles on team processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, Aggarwal, I., Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (under review). Learning how to coordinate: The moderating role of cognitive diversity on the relationship between collective intelligence and team learning. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42(2), Engel,D.,Woolley,A.W.,Jing,L.X.,Chabris,C.F.,&Malone,T.W.(2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e Hackman, J. R., & O Connor, M. (2004). What makes for a great analytic team? Individual vs. team approaches to intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: Intelligence Science Board, Office of the Director of Central Intelligence. Thompson, J. D. (1967). The Structure of Complex Organizations (pp ). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Wageman, R., Nunes, D. A., Burruss, J. A.,& Hackman, J. R.(2008). SeniorLeadership Teams: What it takes to make them great. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Woolley, A. W. (2009). Means versus ends: Implications of outcome and process focus for team adaptation and performance. Organization Science, 20, Woolley, A. W. (2009). Putting first things first: Outcome and process focus in knowledge work teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), Woolley, A. W., Gerbasi, M. E., Chabris, C. F., Kosslyn, S. M., & Hackman, J. R. (2008). Bringing in the experts: How team composition and work strategy jointly shape analytic effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39(3), Woolley, A. W., Bear, J. B., Chang, J. W., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2013). The effects of team strategic orientation on team process and information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330 (6004),