Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the it-ain't-just-synergy dept.

The concept of "collective intelligence" is simple — it asserts that if a team performs well on one task, it will repeat that success on other projects, regardless of the scope or focus of the work. While it sounds good in theory, it doesn't work that way in reality, according to an Iowa State University researcher.

Marcus Credé, an assistant professor of psychology, says unlike individuals, group dynamics are too complex to predict a team's effectiveness with one general factor, such as intelligence. Instead, there are a variety of factors — leadership, group communication, decision-making skills —that affect a team's performance, he said.

Anita Woolley's research supporting collective intelligence quickly gained traction in the business world when it was first introduced in 2010. The attention was not surprising to Credé. Because organizations rely heavily on group work, managers are always looking for a "silver bullet" to improve team performance, he said. However, after re-analyzing the data gathered by Woolley and her colleagues, Credé and Garett Howardson, an assistant professor at Hofstra University, found the data didn't support the basic premise of collective intelligence. Their work is published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

[Source]: You would not ask a firefighter to perform open-heart surgery

[Abstract]: The structure of group task performance—A second look at "collective intelligence": Comment on Woolley et al. (2010).

Do you agree with this premise?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:19PM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:19PM (#584635) Journal

    The reality is that people who do well at one cognitive task tend to do well at most others by any and all possible measurements.

    Like people who are really good at counting objects are also really good at interacting with people? Sure.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:11PM (#584832)

    Whether or not someone is "good" at interacting with others is subjective.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:32PM (#584858)

      Correct. Was Hitler "good" at interacting with others?

      *ducks*

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:50PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:50PM (#584921) Journal

      Whether or not someone is "good" at interacting with others is subjective.

      Just like any other nebulous category of human behavior. But you can always develop objective measures of various tasks associated with said category.