from the world's big
Teamwork? Good, until it’s not: When working alone works best
Teamwork. Support. Group (there's that word) synergy. These are all hallmarks of positive business-speak and, one would assume, business practice. They've become the modern calling cards of businessmen who want to appear non-hierarchical, hip, in touch with the new spirit of entrepreneurship. But could these buzzwords and the actions they entail have a counterintuitive dark side?
In my heart of hearts, I’ve always hoped so. From mass overexposure over the years, I've developed somewhat of an allergy to the whole thing. Don't get me wrong; I can engage in teamwork with the best of them. I've always gotten a check plus plus at playing well with others. I will share my shovel and pail. I won't throw sand in your face. I'll even move over to the far side of the sandbox so that you have more room to make those inverted piles of sand, whatever they're supposed to be (and to top it off, I won't tell you what they look like to me). But sometimes, I'd just like to build my castle on my own, without having to argue about who gets to make the turrets or where the flag should go when it's done.
What I bristle at is the prevailing mentality that it is always good to be a team player, that group projects are always the way to go, that brainstorms, group meetings, group efforts are the wave of the future. The part of high school I look back on with greatest dread? Forced group projects, with the endless scheduling of after school meeting times and the realization as the deadline loomed near that I would once again be stuck with the brunt of the work. And the funniest thing? Almost everyone I've ever talked to has the same impression, that they were always the ones putting in the effort for the entire group. Part of me has always wanted to scream, enough. Groups have their limits. Please, please, please don't make me prove to you once more that I can be a good team player, exhibit team spirit, and work well with "The Team." Please, just let me work alone. Imagine my joy, then, when I opened my most recent issue of Psychological Science.
Teamwork can undermine motivation and commitment
A recent series of studies by psychologists at the Fuqua School of Business and Department of Psychology at Duke and the Department of Psychology at Northwestern suggest that, as far as productivity and motivation is concerned, a team approach may not be the best one to take. In fact, it might hinder your ability to reach crucial benchmarks.
In three experiments, researchers asked study participants to think of a way in which a partner helped them achieve specific health or academic goals. Those who went through the exercise subsequently planned to spend less time and devote less effort to the goals in question than those who did not. They also procrastinated more before engaging in a relevant task. These results suggest that simply thinking about how others could be helpful in attaining a goal could undermine your own motivation and the effort you are willing to expend toward reaching that goal. Moreover, it might make you put off any goal-related activity to some point in the future, confident as you are that there will be someone there to take up the slack. Entrepreneurs, take note.
The plus side of the team
Now, teamwork is not inherently bad, nor am I trying to suggest that delegation or a system of support in attaining stated business goals is a bad thing. Indeed, there is much to be said for it. The Duke researchers also found that those who thought about partners' support felt closer to them and reported higher commitment to the relationship than those who didn't. What seems to have happened is that the delegation of responsibility, or what they term self-regulatory outsourcing, at once undermined commitment to the goal and bolstered commitment to the team. The latter is certainly something worth cultivating, especially for a business that hopes to succeed in the long-term. And I can't say enough about the power of the team in generating ideas, thinking through problems, or offering creative energy to almost any form of business planning (see this recent piece on teamwork in science).
When to delegate – and when to go it alone
What the research does show, I would argue, is that delegation and reliance on a partner or team, even if that reliance is just in your head, should be used judiciously – and with full knowledge of the potential backlash it could have to your own motivation. In other words, delegate responsibly. Know which goals are dependent on you as the key driver. And for those goals, do not think of how others can help; do not brainstorm with the team; do not have a team plan. These are the goals that require maximum motivation and commitment from you, and you alone. And keep that in mind for others as well: there is room for individual work even in a team-based environment, and in some situations, it is far better for people to work on their own than with a buddy. At least, that's the case if you are hoping to achieve some tangible goals that require maximum commitment and motivation.
As for the goals that don't fall under that umbrella, those goals that are the "nice to haves" or secondary, or even primary but not as reliant on a key mover, use them to foster a spirit of team support and enhance a feeling of commitment to one another. Exploit the feeling of togetherness and interconnectedness that comes from outsourcing your self-regulation ability. Sure, it may dilute your own feeling of responsibility (something the researchers don't touch on, but seems to be quite related to general motivation toward goal achievement), but if that dilution happens in a strategically planned area, it will be worth it for the benefits of group cohesion.
The trick is not to forget that there is a role for both group and individual commitment to goals, and not to let the pervading popularity of team spiritedness undermine the eventual achievement of your central objectives.
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
A new study suggests that a century-old vaccine may reduce the severity of coronavirus cases.
- A new study finds a country's tuberculosis BCG vaccination is linked to its COVID-19 mortality rate.
- More BCG vaccinations is connected to fewer severe coronavirus cases.
- The study is preliminary and more research is needed to support the findings.
Professor Luis Escobar.
Credit: Virginia Tech
A study of the manner in which memory works turns up a surprising thing.
- Researchers have found that some basic words appear to be more memorable than others.
- Some faces are also easier to commit to memory.
- Scientists suggest that these words serve as semantic bridges when the brain is searching for a memory.
Cognitive psychologist Weizhen Xie (Zane) of the NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) works with people who have intractable epilepsy, a form of the disorder that can't be controlled with medications. During research into the brain activity of patients, he and his colleagues discovered something odd about human memory: It appears that certain basic words are consistently more memorable than other basic words.
The research is published in Nature Human Behaviour.
An odd find
Image source: Tsekhmister/Shutterstock
Xie's team was re-analyzing memory tests of 30 epilepsy patients undertaken by Kareem Zaghloul of NINDS.
"Our goal is to find and eliminate the source of these harmful and debilitating seizures," Zaghloul said. "The monitoring period also provides a rare opportunity to record the neural activity that controls other parts of our lives. With the help of these patient volunteers we have been able to uncover some of the blueprints behind our memories."
Specifically, the participants were shown word pairs, such as "hand" and "apple." To better understand how the brain might remember such pairings, after a brief interval, participants were supplied one of the two words and asked to recall the other. Of the 300 words used in the tests, five of them proved to be five times more likely to be recalled: pig, tank, doll, pond, and door.
The scientists were perplexed that these words were so much more memorable than words like "cat," "street," "stair," "couch," and "cloud."
Intrigued, the researchers looked at a second data source from a word test taken by 2,623 healthy individuals via Amazon's Mechanical Turk and found essentially the same thing.
"We saw that some things — in this case, words — may be inherently easier for our brains to recall than others," Zaghloul said. That the Mechanical Turk results were so similar may "provide the strongest evidence to date that what we discovered about how the brain controls memory in this set of patients may also be true for people outside of the study."
Why understanding memory matters
Image source: Orawan Pattarawimonchai/Shutterstock
"Our memories play a fundamental role in who we are and how our brains work," Xie said. "However, one of the biggest challenges of studying memory is that people often remember the same things in different ways, making it difficult for researchers to compare people's performances on memory tests." He added that the search for some kind of unified theory of memory has been going on for over a century.
If a comprehensive understanding of the way memory works can be developed, the researchers say that "we can predict what people should remember in advance and understand how our brains do this, then we might be able to develop better ways to evaluate someone's overall brain health."
Image source: joob_in/Shutterstock
Xie's interest in this was piqued during a conversation with Wilma Bainbridge of University of Chicago at a Christmas party a couple of years ago. Bainbridge was, at the time, wrapping up a study of 1,000 volunteers that suggested certain faces are universally more memorable than others.
Bainbridge recalls, "Our exciting finding is that there are some images of people or places that are inherently memorable for all people, even though we have each seen different things in our lives. And if image memorability is so powerful, this means we can know in advance what people are likely to remember or forget."
Image source: Anatomography/Wikimedia
At first, the scientists suspected that the memorable words and faces were simply recalled more frequently and were thus easier to recall. They envisioned them as being akin to "highly trafficked spots connected to smaller spots representing the less memorable words." They developed a modeling program based on word frequencies found in books, new articles, and Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately, the model was unable to predict or duplicate the results they saw in their clinical experiments.
Eventually, the researchers came to suspect that the memorability of certain words was linked to the frequency with which the brain used them as semantic links between other memories, making them often-visited hubs in individuals's memory networks, and therefore places the brain jumped to early and often when retrieving memories. This idea was supported by observed activity in participants' anterior temporal lobe, a language center.
In epilepsy patients, these words were so frequently recalled that subjects often shouted them out even when they were incorrect responses to word-pair inquiries.
Modern search engines no longer simply look for raw words when resolving an inquiry: They also look for semantic — contextual and meaning — connections so that the results they present may better anticipate what it is you're looking for. Xie suggests something similar may be happening in the brain: "You know when you type words into a search engine, and it shows you a list of highly relevant guesses? It feels like the search engine is reading your mind. Well, our results suggest that the brains of the subjects in this study did something similar when they tried to recall a paired word, and we think that this may happen when we remember many of our past experiences."
He also notes that it may one day be possible to leverage individuals' apparently wired-in knowledge of their language as a fixed point against which to assess the health of their memory and brain.