Group Heterogeneity Increases the Risks of Large Group Size

Heterogeneous groups are valuable, but differences among members can weaken group identification. Weak group identification may be especially problematic in larger groups, which, in contrast with smaller groups, require more attention to motivating members and coordinating their tasks. We hypothesized that as groups increase in size, productivity would decrease with greater heterogeneity. We studied the longitudinal productivity of 549 research groups varying in disciplinary heterogeneity, institutional heterogeneity, and size. We examined their publication and citation productivity before their projects started and 5 to 9 years later. Larger groups were more productive than smaller groups, but their marginal productivity declined as their heterogeneity increased, either because their members belonged to more disciplines or to more institutions. These results provide evidence that group heterogeneity moderates the effects of group size, and they suggest that desirable diversity in groups may be better leveraged in smaller, more cohesive units.

[1]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[2]  E. Ramsden.  Group Process and Productivity , 1973 .

[3]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[4]  G. O'Connor.  Small Groups , 1980 .

[5]  B. Latané.  The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[6]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  Modeling Coordination in Organizations and Markets , 1987 .

[7]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Relationships and Tasks in Scientific Research Collaboration , 1987, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  M. Hogg,et al.  Book Review: Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes , 1991 .

[9]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. , 1989 .

[10]  S. Jackson,et al.  Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. , 1991 .

[11]  M. Brewer.  The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time , 1991 .

[12]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance , 1992 .

[13]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. , 1991 .

[14]  S. Finkelstein,et al.  Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of Environmental Turbulence and Discretion , 1993 .

[15]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[16]  G. Olson,et al.  From Laboratories to Collaboratories: A New Organizational Form for Scientific Collaboration , 1997 .

[17]  Richard N. Zare,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research: From Belief to Reality , 1999, Science.

[18]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Structures and Strategies of Interdisciplinary Science , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[19]  J. Jackson.  How Variations in Social Structure Affect Different Types of Intergroup Bias and Different Dimensions of Social Identity in a Multi-Intergroup Setting , 1999 .

[20]  B. Lickel,et al.  Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[22]  Audris Mockus,et al.  Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration , 2000, CSCW '00.

[23]  S. Garrod,et al.  Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size , 2000, Psychological science.

[24]  Wesley Shrum,et al.  The organization of scientific collaborations , 2002 .

[25]  J. Hackman,et al.  Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances , 2002 .

[26]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[27]  R. Liden,et al.  Social Loafing: A Field Investigation , 2004 .

[28]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2005 .

[29]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication , 2005 .

[30]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies , 2006 .

[31]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[33]  J. Cacioppo.  Better Interdisciplinary Research Through Psychological Science , 2007 .

[34]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations , 2007 .

[35]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science , 2008, Science.

[36]  S. Wheelan,et al.  Group Size, Group Development, and Group Productivity , 2009 .

[37]  Beth A. Bechky,et al.  10 Coordination in Organizations: An Integrative Perspective , 2009 .

[38]  M. Wadman.  Study says middle sized labs do best , 2010, Nature.

[39]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal-level theory of psychological distance. , 2010, Psychological review.

[40]  Andrew M. Carton,et al.  A Theory of Subgroups in Work Teams , 2012 .

[41]  Jennifer S. Mueller,et al.  Why individuals in larger teams perform worse , 2012 .