Baumeister et al. have attempted to synthesize a diverse body of research on the reciprocal relations between self-identity and group behavior. The authors argue for two phases in group formation (shared identity followed by self-differentiation), stating that the self-differentiation phase leads to improved group and individual performance. We provide contrary evidence: The value of self-differentiation depends more crucially on the functional challenge of the task facing the group rather than identity-based stages.
We concur that shared identities are required to form groups, but we would also add further criteria to this stage. First, the behaviors of individuals that lead to the formation of groups should be evolutionary conserved at the genomic level of analysis. The group must benefit the individual for nature to select individual-level phenotypes (e.g., cognitive, emotional, behavioral differentiation) that optimize group-level outcomes. However, not all individuals benefit from group outcomes (e.g., division of labor, hierarchical stratification) and therefore group formation can sometimes result in a net cost to certain individuals. Under these circumstances the group may constitute a threat to the individual and hence favor member dissidence, defection and the dynamic formation of new groups.
Second, social emotional communication and processing should serve as the evolutionary mechanisms that regulate individual and group dynamics. Within the individual these emotional sentiments can manifest themselves as behavioral expressions of benevolence, trust, threat, and so forth toward others in one's social sphere (the composition of interactions in which an individual could possibly engage; Vigil Reference Vigil2009). It is these types of basic behaviors that dictate group cohesiveness or separation (i.e., approach and withdrawal outcomes), which, as Baumeister et al. point out, contribute to group performance – especially during the initial phases of group formation (e.g., Jetten et al. Reference Jetten, Hogg and Mullin2000). At this point, our conclusions depart from that of the authors.
We contend that the value of self-differentiation to group performance is determined by the specific task that a group is challenged to complete (e.g., hunting, raiding, protecting, exploring, etc.). From this perspective, simply referring to broad performance profiles in stereotypical, subjective, and far too often morally loaded terms is probably misguided. Consider the term social loafing, which describes individuals providing differential contributions to a group task. Many functional examples of differential sharing of work exist in nature. For example, when large muscles are under a constant load, individual motor units (members of the muscle group) must asynchronously fire to maintain a constant force and compensate for fatigue effects (Gandevia Reference Gandevia2001). This coordinated activity – scaling back of an individual unit's effort (i.e., resting) in combination with increases in the efforts of other units – prolongs the length of time in which a constant force output can be maintained. This is exactly the strategy observed in competitive cycling and combined lifting tasks, where groups of athletes differentially distribute the work of overcoming environmental resistance in order to maintain an output greater than that of any single individual (Hoenigman et al. Reference Hoenigman, Bradley and Lim2011; Masumoto & Inui Reference Masumoto and Inui2013; Olds Reference Olds1998). Therefore, removing the capitalistic connotations and moral judgments about the nature of work and using human physiology and athletic performance as a model we offer a different interpretation of what in this case may be otherwise be interpreted as social loafing.
We draw the reader's attention to another point of the article: Which aspects of individual identities differ amongst group members is not clear. The authors cite a tension between individual sameness and difference during the two respective phases (group formation and maintenance); however, they do not specify whether the pivotal distinctions should be based on surface characteristics, self-reported perceptions of identity, or functions that individuals perform (or can potentially perform). Beyond simple categories of individuals – same versus different – the functions of the group may have very important consequences with respect to the division of labor and optimizing the precise relations within the group. For certain types of tasks, individual specialization can increase group performance (see the authors' example of the flute factory), whereas for other tasks an absolute nonredundancy of individual-level skills can hamstring the effectiveness of the group, for example if one of the members fails to participate (Landau Reference Landau1969; Roberts Reference Roberts1990). Therefore, important considerations in redundancy must be made in the division of labor, perhaps similar to the role of redundant systems observed at all levels of biology (Kitano Reference Kitano2004). Even though biological redundancy can come at a cost (of decreased efficiency), it has the dramatic upside of robustness to perturbation, offering greater resistance to challenge, and ultimately enhancing the stability of success over time (i.e., reliability).
Focusing on the task, we also encourage the authors to avoid dichotomizing the role of self-differentiation in group performance. For example, learning-by-doing could affect group-level performance without any change in self-differentiation as described in Kenneth Arrow's (Reference Arrow1962) seminal paper on organizational learning-by-doing: “It is the very activity of production which gives rise to problems for which favorable responses are selected over time” (p. 156). Additionally, a broad literature in economics and beyond explores group-level forgetting, often relating to the frequency of individual interactions within the group (e.g., Benkard Reference Benkard2000). Clearly, no group stage transition or associated shift in self-differentiation is necessary for these performance improvements to be observed. Finally, we submit that the value of self-differentiation may differ extensively because of the composition of individuals' traits within a given group. For example, individuals sharing trait extroversion (e.g., who are more likely to engage in higher-risk tasks) will likely respond much more positively to self-differentiation than those possessing higher levels of trait introversion – regardless of transitional stages in group development. Therefore, an intersectionality likely exists between the composition of members' trait behavioral tendencies (containing extroverts vs. introverts) and the types of tasks that a group considers engaging in. In summary, it is the nature of the group's goals, the immediate tasks faced and combinations of members' individual traits in that group that contribute to the group's organization and its success or failure.
You have
Access
Baumeister et al. have attempted to synthesize a diverse body of research on the reciprocal relations between self-identity and group behavior. The authors argue for two phases in group formation (shared identity followed by self-differentiation), stating that the self-differentiation phase leads to improved group and individual performance. We provide contrary evidence: The value of self-differentiation depends more crucially on the functional challenge of the task facing the group rather than identity-based stages.
We concur that shared identities are required to form groups, but we would also add further criteria to this stage. First, the behaviors of individuals that lead to the formation of groups should be evolutionary conserved at the genomic level of analysis. The group must benefit the individual for nature to select individual-level phenotypes (e.g., cognitive, emotional, behavioral differentiation) that optimize group-level outcomes. However, not all individuals benefit from group outcomes (e.g., division of labor, hierarchical stratification) and therefore group formation can sometimes result in a net cost to certain individuals. Under these circumstances the group may constitute a threat to the individual and hence favor member dissidence, defection and the dynamic formation of new groups.
Second, social emotional communication and processing should serve as the evolutionary mechanisms that regulate individual and group dynamics. Within the individual these emotional sentiments can manifest themselves as behavioral expressions of benevolence, trust, threat, and so forth toward others in one's social sphere (the composition of interactions in which an individual could possibly engage; Vigil Reference Vigil2009). It is these types of basic behaviors that dictate group cohesiveness or separation (i.e., approach and withdrawal outcomes), which, as Baumeister et al. point out, contribute to group performance – especially during the initial phases of group formation (e.g., Jetten et al. Reference Jetten, Hogg and Mullin2000). At this point, our conclusions depart from that of the authors.
We contend that the value of self-differentiation to group performance is determined by the specific task that a group is challenged to complete (e.g., hunting, raiding, protecting, exploring, etc.). From this perspective, simply referring to broad performance profiles in stereotypical, subjective, and far too often morally loaded terms is probably misguided. Consider the term social loafing, which describes individuals providing differential contributions to a group task. Many functional examples of differential sharing of work exist in nature. For example, when large muscles are under a constant load, individual motor units (members of the muscle group) must asynchronously fire to maintain a constant force and compensate for fatigue effects (Gandevia Reference Gandevia2001). This coordinated activity – scaling back of an individual unit's effort (i.e., resting) in combination with increases in the efforts of other units – prolongs the length of time in which a constant force output can be maintained. This is exactly the strategy observed in competitive cycling and combined lifting tasks, where groups of athletes differentially distribute the work of overcoming environmental resistance in order to maintain an output greater than that of any single individual (Hoenigman et al. Reference Hoenigman, Bradley and Lim2011; Masumoto & Inui Reference Masumoto and Inui2013; Olds Reference Olds1998). Therefore, removing the capitalistic connotations and moral judgments about the nature of work and using human physiology and athletic performance as a model we offer a different interpretation of what in this case may be otherwise be interpreted as social loafing.
We draw the reader's attention to another point of the article: Which aspects of individual identities differ amongst group members is not clear. The authors cite a tension between individual sameness and difference during the two respective phases (group formation and maintenance); however, they do not specify whether the pivotal distinctions should be based on surface characteristics, self-reported perceptions of identity, or functions that individuals perform (or can potentially perform). Beyond simple categories of individuals – same versus different – the functions of the group may have very important consequences with respect to the division of labor and optimizing the precise relations within the group. For certain types of tasks, individual specialization can increase group performance (see the authors' example of the flute factory), whereas for other tasks an absolute nonredundancy of individual-level skills can hamstring the effectiveness of the group, for example if one of the members fails to participate (Landau Reference Landau1969; Roberts Reference Roberts1990). Therefore, important considerations in redundancy must be made in the division of labor, perhaps similar to the role of redundant systems observed at all levels of biology (Kitano Reference Kitano2004). Even though biological redundancy can come at a cost (of decreased efficiency), it has the dramatic upside of robustness to perturbation, offering greater resistance to challenge, and ultimately enhancing the stability of success over time (i.e., reliability).
Focusing on the task, we also encourage the authors to avoid dichotomizing the role of self-differentiation in group performance. For example, learning-by-doing could affect group-level performance without any change in self-differentiation as described in Kenneth Arrow's (Reference Arrow1962) seminal paper on organizational learning-by-doing: “It is the very activity of production which gives rise to problems for which favorable responses are selected over time” (p. 156). Additionally, a broad literature in economics and beyond explores group-level forgetting, often relating to the frequency of individual interactions within the group (e.g., Benkard Reference Benkard2000). Clearly, no group stage transition or associated shift in self-differentiation is necessary for these performance improvements to be observed. Finally, we submit that the value of self-differentiation may differ extensively because of the composition of individuals' traits within a given group. For example, individuals sharing trait extroversion (e.g., who are more likely to engage in higher-risk tasks) will likely respond much more positively to self-differentiation than those possessing higher levels of trait introversion – regardless of transitional stages in group development. Therefore, an intersectionality likely exists between the composition of members' trait behavioral tendencies (containing extroverts vs. introverts) and the types of tasks that a group considers engaging in. In summary, it is the nature of the group's goals, the immediate tasks faced and combinations of members' individual traits in that group that contribute to the group's organization and its success or failure.