Skip to content

Cultura in Impresa

Split image: a man works with two colleagues and, beside it, alone on a laptop

Psychology8 min read

Group work vs. the individual approach: an in-depth analysis of productivity dynamics

A century of experiments, from Allport to Zajonc, shows which tasks benefit from the presence of other people and which ones suffer.

by Alberto Viotto · Published · Updated

Dark silhouettes: one person with arms crossed facing a group of three, with the word VS

The paradox of collaboration

At some point in our working lives, all of us have found ourselves wondering how effective group work really is. How many endless meetings, how many circular discussions, how many moments when we would rather have worked alone, without having to mediate between conflicting opinions or wait for a contribution from someone who seemed barely involved?

And yet we also recognize that some of the best solutions come precisely from collective exchange, from the merging of different perspectives, from the group’s ability to overcome the limits of the individual.

Where, then, is the line between productive collaboration and collective inefficiency? To answer, we need to look at decades of psychological and sociological research on when and why groups work, and when the individual approach is superior instead.

1. The presence of others: stimulus or distraction? From the pioneering experiments to Zajonc’s theory

Allport’s studies (1920): quality vs. quantity

Floyd Henry Allport, one of the fathers of experimental social psychology, ran a series of experiments that were fundamental to understanding how the presence of others affects cognitive performance.

In a typical trial, participants had to carry out word-association tasks and write refutations of short arguments, both alone and alongside a colleague. The results were illuminating:

  • On simple tasks (e.g., free word association), the presence of other people at work increased the speed of execution.
  • On complex tasks (e.g., refuting an argument), the proximity of a peer lowered the quality of the responses.

Allport concluded that social influence acts as an accelerator for mechanical activities but becomes a brake on those that require deep concentration.

Zajonc and drive theory (1965): arousal as the key

Robert Zajonc took these observations further with his drive theory, explaining that the presence of others produces a physiological increase in arousal (psychophysical activation). This state has two opposite effects:

  1. Social facilitation: on well-learned tasks (e.g., driving, playing an instrument), arousal improves performance, because it strengthens consolidated motor patterns.
  2. Social inhibition: on new or complex tasks (e.g., learning a language, solving a problem never seen before), arousal gets in the way, because it inhibits the formation of new cognitive connections.

A concrete example:

  • An expert pianist will play better in a concert in front of an audience (arousal helps the well-learned task).
  • A beginning student will make more mistakes in an oral exam than in a written one (arousal hinders the task not yet mastered).

2. The Ringelmann effect and social loafing: why “many hands make light work”… and lighten each person’s effort

The rope-pulling experiment

Between 1882 and 1887 the French agricultural engineer Max Ringelmann asked groups of people to pull on a rope and measured the force each one applied (the results were published only in 1913). He found that:

  • 1 person alone exerted, on average, 63 kg of force.
  • In a group, each person applied only 59 kg (2 people), 53 kg (3 people), down to 31 kg (8 people).

In other words, the larger the group, the less effort each individual puts in. The phenomenon, later called “social loafing,” was confirmed by a meta-analysis of 78 studies, which found it to be robust and present across different tasks and populations (Karau and Williams, 1993).

Why does it happen? Three psychological mechanisms

  1. Diffusion of responsibility: “If I don’t give it my all, someone else will do it for me.”
  2. Free-rider effect: some members take advantage of other people’s work.
  3. Lack of individual recognition: in a large group, one’s personal contribution seems invisible.

Practical implications:

  • In companies, teams that are too large lead to declining productivity.
  • In sports teams, athletes tend to save their energy when each person’s contribution is not identifiable (this is the subject of a study on swimming relays: Williams, Nida, Baca, and Latané, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1989).

3. Brainstorming: why “two heads are better than one” is often a myth

The failure of traditional brainstorming

The idea that putting people in a room to “throw ideas around” leads to brilliant solutions is widely overrated.

The classic study by Taylor, Berry and Block (1958), later confirmed by Diehl & Stroebe (1987), had already shown that:

  • Nominal groups (people who work separately and whose ideas are then pooled) generate roughly twice as many ideas as real groups.

Reasons for the failure:

How can it be improved? Electronic brainstorming

One effective solution is electronic brainstorming (EBS), in which participants contribute by computer in real time.

Advantages:

  • Less social anxiety (participation is anonymous or semi-anonymous).
  • Parallelism (everyone can write at once; nobody waits).
  • Greater diversity of ideas (no dominance by the more extroverted participants).

Example:

  • In large groups (6 and 12 people), electronic brainstorming produced more ideas, and of better quality, than spoken meetings (Gallupe and colleagues, Academy of Management Journal, 1992).

4. When does the group beat the individual? The exceptions that prove the rule

Despite its limits, group work is irreplaceable in some situations:

A) Tasks too complex for one person

Problems such as designing an airplane or treating a patient require multidisciplinary expertise.

Conditions for success:

  • Small teams (3–5 people).
  • Well-defined roles (every member must be essential).
  • Clear communication (avoiding ineffective “overcommunication”).

B) Tasks with immediate feedback

In settings where it is crucial to adjust the action quickly (e.g., sports teams, surgical teams), the group excels.

Example:

C) Intrinsic motivation and shared identity

If the members believe in the project and feel part of a mission, collective effort exceeds individual effort.

Example:

  • Open-source teams (e.g., Linux developers) work with high productivity even though they are decentralized, because they are driven by passion and peer recognition.

Conclusions: getting the group and the individual to work together

Having gone through studies, theories, and experiments, one thing is clear: there is no single answer to the question of whether it is better to work in a group or alone. The truth, as so often, lies somewhere in between and depends on a set of factors we have examined.

Think of how many times we have sat in meetings that seemed to lead nowhere, where ideas got lost in endless discussion and time went by without tangible results. At the same time, though, we also remember those moments when an exchange with others sparked an insight, corrected a mistake, or opened up perspectives we would never have considered on our own.

Research tells us that when the tasks are simple, repetitive, or in need of a motivational push, the presence of others can be an accelerator. This is the case of the athlete who runs faster with the crowd cheering, or of the colleague who, working alongside a peer, finishes a routine task more quickly. The effect is reversed, however, when the work becomes complex, when it calls for deep concentration or creative thinking. In those cases, too many voices around us become a distraction, and constant exchange risks stifling originality.

One particularly interesting aspect is social loafing, the phenomenon whereby, in a group that is too large, everyone tends to put in less effort, almost as if they felt protected by the anonymity of the collective. It is an insidious mechanism that undermines productivity almost without our noticing. And yet when the group is small and well coordinated, and every member feels they have an irreplaceable role, the dynamic is reversed: collaboration then becomes a powerful force, capable of reaching goals that an individual could never reach alone.

Take brainstorming, for example. How many times has it been presented to us as the perfect method for generating innovative ideas? And yet the data tell us that it often fails, because social pressure, the fear of looking stupid, or the simple fact of having to wait one’s turn to speak end up restricting the creative flow. So what then? Should we abandon it? Not necessarily. By changing the approach, perhaps alternating periods of individual work with discussion sessions, or using digital tools that reduce the anxiety of being judged, we can turn it into a truly effective tool.

The real point, then, is not to choose between group and individual but to understand how to get them to work together. How to integrate moments of creative solitude, in which each person develops their own ideas without constraints, with moments of sharing and discussion, where those ideas are tested, refined, and combined. It is a delicate balance, one that requires awareness and flexibility.

The groups that work best know how to alternate phases of individual exploration with moments of intense collaboration, avoiding both sterile isolation and the noise of too many voices. They know that a group works only if every member has room to think for themselves, but also the chance to exchange and mix ideas with the others.

(Alberto Viotto)