You need a team or group whenever you cannot do it alone: when you need competencies you do not have (usually a team) or when the volume of work is too big (usually a group).

Or if you do not want to do it alone: when you want to have fun or spread responsibility.

{THE DICHOTOMY, RESOURCE, COMMON SENSE}

We form a team or a group because we cannot or do not want to do something alone. And when we need a group effort, a proper group is preferable to an improper one.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, COMMON SENSE, ADEQUACY}

There are many different groups.

There are groups of mature professionals who want to achieve endpoints, groups of immature amateurs who do not care, and a universe in between.

Mature professionals may provide you with brilliant ideas; immature amateurs may suck your blood and waste your time.

Sometimes, it may happen the other way around. Observe and try; try and observe. {GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, GROUP GOAL MIX, TRIAL AND ERROR, FAIL FORWARD}

If something can take a lot of time, bound it. Announce that you will spend this amount of time on this task (15 minutes, an hour, or half a day), and you will accept the result as it will be at the end of the activity.

{CONSTRAINTS OF A SYSTEM, IMPOSE CONSTRAINTS}

No.

And if somebody is trying to sell you “the model,” it is likely junk.

The best approach is to select members based on their competencies and project needs. {PROJECT: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

In reality, you will deal with the people already there, and no picking-up will exist. You will be better off weeding them out {WEED-OUT}.

The weed-out can be complete and procedural. You either fire the unfit (complete) or keep the wrong people from your procedures (procedural). With the latter, you do not involve them in anything they can harm or spoil.

{INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, NEED-TO-KNOW, COMPARTMENTALIZATION}

Any project team is a group, so everything true for a group will also be relevant here.

Next, remember that getting people in and weeding them out will depend on a project's attractiveness.

If the project is attractive and has many resources or other things people value, getting people on board will be easier than getting rid of them. The opposite will be valid for losing or unattractive projects—these are poor orphans.

Otherwise, the applicable principles are simple: first, you must understand who you want onboard and why you want them there—there should be no NPCs (non-player characters) in a group. Second, there must be clear ground rules, and people getting on board must understand and accept them. {GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, GROUND RULES, GROUP GOAL MIX}

A frequent situation might be that you do not communicate much about goals or rules, so people enter with expectations that differ from the existing options. At some point, both clash, and the situation becomes unhealthy.

{SUBJECTIVITY}

Ask yourself: If these people had been here all the time from the start, what essential information would they have known? Communicate it to them. Training is communication.

To be able to do that, you must have current project information available, and if you don't have such information, try to summarize it now. {COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, PROJECT: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, PROJECT DIARY}

Next, establish a learning culture: Encourage new people to ask questions and encourage old people to share.

{GROUND RULES}

Any categorization is a model of reality, and any model is wrong because it is not reality but a deliberate simplification.

Yet, models can be helpful if they help us recognize valuable truths hidden in the random fluctuations of everyday life. {REALITY, SUBJECTIVITY, SIGNAL/NOISE}

We discussed models that grouped followers according to their critical thinking, active or passive stance, networking, and performance initiative, among other things.

These models are helpful because they make us aware that followers in existing groups differ.

Employees are not uniform gray figurines dancing in a circle and shining with uniform happiness because dancing hard can increase the shareholder value for their bosses whom they sincerely love and admire. No, far from that.

Followers differ in any group. They have different expectations, interests, and contributions. (Yes, for some, it feels good to be lonely)

While categorization is good in the sense of welcoming complexity, it is a simplification nonetheless, and we should continue beyond the level of these categories.

We should look deeper, see people as individuals, and build personal relationships with them.

It’s also important to consider the temporal pattern of followership. These followership styles are not static and might change during the group’s life.  

Lastly, we can see different follower types in already existing groups. There is a group, particular relationships in that group, and specific output of the group members that make us say that these people act in a certain way. Hence, we can call them “politicians,” “sheep,” “contributors,” “partners,” and other types.

We cannot summon people, get them into the line, and ask: “Are you an effective follower?” “Are you a partner or a sheep?” “Are you high on critical thinking or low?” We cannot do that before we have witnessed their behavior.

However, we can make many educated guesses when we better understand the group’s context and the members’ past achievements. Then, we don’t let some people in and screen them throughout the group’s life.

{WEED-OUT, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, HETEROGENEITY}

Bruce Tuckman’s “forming-storming-norming-performing” is one of the models. There are others.

As with any model, it describes reality, simplifying it. The simplification is always considerable if it is a model describing people and their interactions.

What is good about this model is that although simple—initially, it had four stages—it informs that groups can have a life cycle and likely will have problems that can lead to their split.

Knowing these, we can improve the process with ground rules when we build a new group. {GROUND RULES}

Moreover, the model allows for a wide range of variations in the emphasis of each phase and the potential for movement between them.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, COHESION, ADEQUACY, KAIROS}

Since the dawn of humankind, people have hunted animals in teams.

There is a lot of rationale for using combined effort: we often need help to do complex things. Thus, grouping and teaming will be with us for a long time.

By the way, herding also has a good chance for survival as it is a way to share responsibility for decisions and actions.

However, as we discussed, we should refrain from building teams and thus face the need to maintain and coordinate them if we can do the work alone.

{OMERTA, COHESION, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD}

It depends on what you mean by the role here.

If you mean a set of job-related procedures, i.e., a job description, then if a supervisor agrees, others are informed.

On the other hand, it might be more challenging if it is about a social role.

We often bring our roles with us due to our personality traits. The challenge is that even when others agree, which might not be the case, it might be hard for us to play a different role.

Yet, we can always try.

{WHO AM I? RESOURCE, COMMON SENSE, CHANGING GROUP NORMS}

If the weed-out of free-riders is impossible, it depends on what initiatives you can implement. {POSITIONAL POWER, WEED-OUT}

If you can implement none, then you cannot do much, and your arsenal will be limited to advising the boss. And she will be free to listen to your advice or not. I presume, in most cases, she will not. {INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, SUBJECTIVITY, CRAPPY BOSSES}

However, if you can implement things, then the best would be to restructure the group into smaller subgroups with specific goals.

Another approach would be to give people personal responsibilities. The more identifiable the output of each member, the better it might be for the group.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDICS APPROACH, EXPLORE AND EXPLOIT}

The limit will depend on the communication quality and quantity a supervisor can provide. {CONSTRAINTS OF A SYSTEM}

These parameters will differ between people. One person can mentor twenty people, while another struggles with a single Ph.D. student.

Observe the result. If a group succeeds, ask its leader about the “trade secrets,” the effect of the size, her approaches, etc. She might be willing to share.

When you see an extremely unsuccessful group, it might help to ask about their “secrets” too. Observe. Poorly run groups can provide interesting data on what to avoid.

If possible, do not join such a group; it is better to stay an outsider.

{DATA, HETEROGENEITY, BLACK-BOX APPROACH, CRAPPY JOINT}

The observation “famous researchers have large groups” is multi-layered. Let’s peel it.

First, what is the definition of “famous researchers”? Who are they?

The more people know about you, the more famous you are by definition. Here, Nail Hall coined The Kardashian Index (K-Index)—a satirical measure of the discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record. Dr. Hall coined it in 2014 to showcase that fame and scientific impact differ.

Second, suppose we calculate the researcher’s value by referring to her h-index, citation rate, or publication rate. In that case, we must consider the cause-and-effect relationship, which may be complex.

It is easier to get more metrics when you have a bigger group where every member lists you as a co-author.

Thus, it might not be “good researchers have huge groups,” but “researchers with huge groups can publish more” and get cited more.

The existence of a big group might depend not only on scientific merit but also on political skill, which helps accumulate the resources required to do research. Moreover, the ultimate success may depend on luck, which is especially important early in a career. {ABUNDANCE OF RESOURCES, KAIROS, }

If you want a more exhaustive treatment, check Feichtinger et al. (2021), Fox and Nikivincze (2020), Rørstad and Aksnes (2015), and, of course, Merton (1968).

However, the most important might be the third layer.

These “huge groups” will always have subgroups focused on their subgoals. We will rarely have 20 people working on one question at the same time and writing one paper; we will likely have three subgroups working on five to six research questions that will have some overlap.

Fourth, hierarchies mean increasing the number of subordinates by definition—the higher the rank, the more subordinates you have.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, HIERARCHY}

We can build a hierarchy with working communication lines: you manage the “lieutenants” group, and they manage groups of “soldiers.”

{HIERARCHY, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Think about the differences between a military corps (30-50 thousand) and Facebook (45 thousand employees)

As we discussed, the size depends on the goal. There might be an evolutionary maximum, though—the Dunbar number (~150).

Next, there will be some tiers based on the amount of interaction. The number of different relations (R) is N*(N-1); thus, a group of two will have two relations, three – six (or three couples), and four – 12. The maximum number of close friends forming a group is four.

{CLIQUE, COHESION, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

“In one survey, 61 percent of employees said that workplace stress had made them sick, and 7 percent said they had actually been hospitalized.

Job stress costs US employers more than $300 billion annually and may cause 120,000 excess deaths each year. In China, 1 million people a year may be dying from overwork.

People are literally dying for a paycheck. And it needs to stop.”—Dying for a Paycheck: How Modern Management Harms Employee Health and Company Performance...

Yes, the border between loafing and overworking might be less distinct than we want it to be. Moreover, the border will differ between people and for the same person at different times.

You find your dynamic balance. In your shifting context.

{ADEQUACY, LACK OF MOTIVATION, HETEROGENEITY}

Results ultimately and objectively judge any group’s functionality: fulfilling its purpose means good functionality.

It is valid for all groups—pleasure and work. For instance, if a group for pleasure does not give you pleasure, it does not serve its purpose. {THE DICHOTOMY, BLACK-BOX APPROACH, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

Indeed, we can get deeper. Suppose we try to look inside the “black box” and assess the internal processes. In that case, we must:

1. Do extra work (i.e., the extra time and money).

2. Be sure that this work translates into meaningful results (and the providers of such diagnostics (consultants) might not be objective about the benefits of their tools).

3. Know what to do with the results (when they are OK and when not).

If we know we can do these regularly with benefits outweighing costs, why not?

If we are uncertain, then we better stick to the endpoint analysis. {ENDPOINT TIERS, ECPM}

By the way, it would be beneficial if you could inquire about the results of that particular survey and explore it as a case study. Why was it organized? What did it show? What decisions did the results inform? And what were the results of those decisions, if any?

{MEANINGLESS METRICS, "EFFECTIVE MANAGERS"}

If you do not have the power to change, then your options are minimal. {POSITIONAL POWER}

If you have the power to implement changes, then do it step by step.

Think about a boa constrictor wrapping its coils around a prey. The coil fixes the reduced chest volume of the prey with every breath out, and getting the same volume on the next breath-in becomes impossible.

The metaphor might be creepy, but it reflects the principle. You make changes in small increments, yet every tiny change must endure. And then another small change and another. {DAILY INCREMENTS}

Still, changing established norms in a group is hard, even from a position of power.

Without the power and having minimal chances for success, if you still want to fight this uphill battle, you do it by building coalitions, being consistent with your demands, and changing in small bites.

{COALITION, CHANGING GROUP NORMS}

A group is always a compromise. It will always have a group goal and members’ personal goals for belonging to it. {GROUP GOAL MIX}

This goal mix will be an essential, yet usually omitted, characteristic of any group.

Think of a university’s faculty. It is a group; however, individual goals will be more important for students than any goal a faculty might have. The same is valid for workgroups.

Thus, any transformational endeavor in a research unit will be more challenging than in a factory or shop.

“The basic assumption of any transformational project is the existence of a single direction, the arrival at which is measurable and towards which the team “must pull harder.” In a nuclear medicine department, there is hardly any “single direction.” The actors—clinicians and nurses, Ph.D. students, postdocs, technicians, engineers, physicists, etc.—have different, sometimes contradicting, goals of their work. No magic trick can “align” all these goals to some super-goal.” (Nesterov, 2021)

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, ENDPOINT TIERS}

We do it by trial and error, trying to fill the positions with optimal people.

It is helpful to personalize their input/output ratios and establish idiosyncratic arrangements with them.

{TRIAL AND ERROR, ADEQUACY, COMMON SENSE, WEED-OUT}

Many (most?) of our judgments are purely subjective.

People have different levels of self-esteem and estimate their assets differently, emphasizing the ones they have and discounting those of others.

As one of our primary drivers is status, our devious brain often finds a way to explain that we are better than the rest. At least better than the majority. Particularly in the ethical realm. (You might find interesting references here)

Thus, in many cases, our sense of fairness will be subjective.

However, for people experiencing these subjective judgments, they are undeniably real. They form their reality. {REALITY}

The best thing you can do is establish clear ground rules and be open to communication.

{SUBJECTIVITY, GROUND RULES, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Although the absolute majority will agree that a fair workplace and organizational justice are good things, fairness might mean different things to different people. {SUBJECTIVITY}

A repeated gripe from Ph.D. students from developing countries is that they can be treated worse, in a sense “less fairly,” than Ph.D. students from Finland. Supervisors expect the former to work longer hours and be at work on holidays and weekends.

Is it unfair? Hard to say.

If asked, their supervisors would say that nothing unfair is going on, but the competencies they acquired in their home countries are worse than those of Finnish students; thus, they need to work more to get the same degree.

It is possible.

Another possibility is that some supervisors might value Ph.D. students from their country more and consider spending time on expats as a charitable endeavor. {REALITY, CRAPPY JOINT, OMERTA}

How to balance?

Explore each case and develop idiosyncratic arrangements with the employees: “I-deals are ... highly valuable, as they can help individual employees to more easily adapt to the fast-changing environments that nowadays characterize society and the labor market.” (Van der Heijden et al. 2021)

Conflicts will happen. They occur whenever differences of opinion (can) affect the distribution of limited resources.

While we live in a world of limited resources and subjective views, we can never eliminate conflicts.

Moreover, the probability and seriousness of conflicts will grow with the reduction of available resources and the growing diversity of opinions. We can observe extreme situations in disaster movies and, in less edited versions, in real life.

However, you can and should establish ground rules to regulate how your team behaves: who reports to whom in various circumstances, how you prioritize the use of resources, and how members solve disagreements.

You think about multiple scenarios before you start to work, develop procedures, and get agreement from the group members to follow these procedures. The agreement is easy when no resources (and vested interests) are involved. However, once something is publicly agreed upon, people are less prone to break such agreements.

Agreement on group goals, trust, and open communication also help minimize conflicts.

{GROUND RULES, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, TRUST, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Understand why these conflicts exist. There must have been a reason; something must have caused them. Work on it.

If you cannot affect the cause or cannot do anything about it, it will depend on how gross the feud's effect is on your objectives. Make the conflicting parties work on separate projects. Disrupt their communication. {COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Some leaders encourage conflicts following the old maxim: divide and conquer. Disputes between members stabilize the leader's authority, bringing opportunities to judge.

Even if you are not one of those leaders, the vision of one big family soaking with love and friendship, publishing in world-class journals, and getting loads of grants might be an illusion.

There are tradeoffs. Always.

{ADEQUACY, COMMON SENSE, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

In general, humans should be humane.

At the same time, you must be clear: Are you grouping for having work done (the so-called task orientation) or having a good time (socio-emotional orientation)?

{THE DICHOTOMY, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, CRAPPY JOINT}

We discussed that in academia, there are “bosses” who act autocratically. Such behavior is understandable but weird.

The main benefits of academia are freedom and fraternity of people engaged in intellectual work.

When one starts playing boss, she exchanges the real treasure for the illusion of power.

Do academic bosses have political power? No. Do they have money power? No, they are rarely rich. Do they have celebrity status? No. Even journalists usually ask their opinions only if these can provide texture for some existing political agenda.

Thus, the things to be proud of and cherish are intellectual fraternity and freedom, which includes, of course, the freedom to attend or not attend meetings.

Why do they act like this? For one thing, it is our ape heritage: if I can force you to do something you don’t want, it means I have some status in the hierarchy. Thus, I am not a total loss.

However, there is another thing: at the beginning of your work, you might not appreciate the need for certain things, and these meetings might be communication opportunities.

As a newcomer, you will benefit from attending the existing meetings to observe and form your opinion about the organization in which you landed. {COMMON SENSE, DATA, CALIBRATE YOUR PERCEPTION}

However, once you understand that the meetings are useless and somebody forces you to waste your time, an exit is always an option.

Changing a stuffy environment might be better than changing the behavior and attitudes of such a “boss.”

{CRAPPY JOINT, CRAPPY BOSSES}

We can reword the question: can a group of people with similar backgrounds be insured against groupthink?

No, it cannot.

Is any group working together for a long time safe from forming a bubble?

No, it is not.

Forming a similar view of reality is a characteristic of a cohesive group. {COHESION}

People may be together because they have similar backgrounds, education, ethnicity, and outlooks.

The more the group stays together and the less it communicates with the outgroup, the more likely it will have groupthink.

Thus, we come to a curious paradox—the more homogeneous the group, the better it can perform the known task, yet it will be more prone to groupthink, leading to worse performance in the future when new approaches become needed. The better we perform the known, the more chances we will fail with the unknown. {REALITY}

Conversely, the more heterogeneous people are, the harder it is to unite them, and the more likely conflicts may arise.

However, this very diversity can lead to the formation of a more comprehensive and accurate model of reality, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of future performance. {HETEROGENEITY}

Of course, if the group does not split before that.

Thus, groupthink modulating responses to Delphi is possible, but, as you can guess, it is not the big thing in a larger context.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, GROUPTHINK, }

Of course, it can lead to confirmation bias. And it can lead to groupthink, which is similar because groupthink means protecting your group’s reality no matter how crazy it might be.

{GROUPTHINK, COHESION, REALITY}

Hierarchies are with us for good—this is something to remember.

In smaller organizations, people might play with horizontal things, yet a workgroup of 10 or more people cannot be flat.

For a few reasons: first, hierarchies give speed; second, there must be a responsible and accountable person.

Yes, we often see that people at the top of hierarchies will try to avoid responsibility, and their mistakes and blunders are settled by the people at the bottom.

Yet, in general, there must be someone accountable.

Thus, on “a company level,” you will unlikely have flat and horizontal communication unless the company is five people big.

You might check "7 Rules of Power" by Jeffrey Pfeffer.

{CRAPPY BOSSES, CRAPPY JOINT, HIERARCHY, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, POSITIONAL POWER}

Isolate the highly motivated individual from it. Psychological isolation will do as well.

If you feel the context is unhealthy, you risk becoming a part of the context if you linger too long. You will rot.

Thus, if you cannot withdraw from the unhealthy environment for any reason, insulate yourself psychologically. Some people call it “internal immigration.”

{CRAPPY JOINT, CONSTRAINTS OF A SYSTEM, LACK OF MOTIVATION, CHANGING GROUP NORMS}

Nothing beats the common goal.

Trust and a shared work ethic are excellent aids, and so is the daily work with the team, yet if group members do not share the intention to reach the common goal, all the rest are cosmetic surgery on a corpse. {GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, TRUST, COHESION}

There are two more things to remember: exclusion is no less critical than inclusion; second, any harmony in relations results from trial and error.

{TRIAL AND ERROR, WEED-OUT}

If you know you are incompatible with someone, do not bond.

It is important to say “no” at the outset when the cost of changes is nil. If possible, do it privately and explain the refusal.

As we have discussed, any group has an overhead of building, coordinating, and maintaining it. Thus, group when you are sure the outcome will generously pay for all the costs of having the group.

{KAIROS, FEEDBACK, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD}

“Team-building” activities, as they are usually done, have nothing to do with building a work team.

Tugs-of-war, paper chains, charades, and the like might help socialize—to get acquainted and have fun at an employer’s expense.

Yet, they do not train the team to work together. {ADEQUACY, COMMON SENSE, THE DICHOTOMY}

Appropriate activities build task cohesion and help you rehearse your actual work, as performed by the military, firefighters, and theatrical troupes. Thus, rehearsals are the best team-building activities.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, TRUST, DAILY INCREMENTS}

First, it is hard in groups to establish anything that all the members will perceive as equally distributed. {SUBJECTIVITY, CURSE OF ACTION}

Second, cohesion is a complex phenomenon, not a parameter to increase at all costs.

Often, we will have people (isolates) who do not consider themselves a part of a group. How can it be wrong if they feel okay and it does not prevent them from doing their work, which we can objectively measure? Thus, a lack of cohesion should not be a trigger to exit. {COHESION}

However, what you mean might be different: you might not fit into the group, or it does not help you reach your endpoints. Then, changing it is always an option.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, CRAPPY JOINT, ADEQUACY}

Why should one want to reduce competition between them?

Though done in collaboration, science is an individual sport, and committees, boards, and other resource-distributing groups assess you by your publications—your first or last co-authorship—and your h-index.

Next, a research group is a unique type of group characterized by its heterogeneity. It comprises individuals at different stages of their research careers, from Master's students to Ph.D. students and Postdocs, with specific goals and resources. Each stage is temporary. And each stage is about learning, i.e., preparing a young researcher for the future in her field.

It is indeed reasonable to have some intragroup competition in research groups to prepare the researchers for the future better.

{COHESION, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, EXPERT, GROUP GOAL MIX, FAIL FORWARD}

Intragroup competition—i.e., competition between members of the same group—decreases cohesion.

However, by design, some groups focus more on personal than group goals. And if the group aims to create unique specialists, the unit's cohesiveness is not a priority.

{EXPERT, EXPERT FUNNEL, COHESION, GROUP GOAL MIX}

You do not accommodate—you optimize. And you do it by trial and error. {TRIAL AND ERROR}

Be prepared that you will unlikely find an ideal solution, so aim for maximum satisfaction for the maximum number of people.

You can start by asking people, one-on-one, about their preferences without promising them anything.

{IDIOSYNCRATIC ARRANGEMENTS, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, COMMON SENSE}

It sounds like the collaborator is a certainty that hinders.

It will depend on the collaborator's position in the organization or the project and your ability to affect it.

Sometimes, getting rid of a bad apple might be the only solution.

{WEED-OUT, POSITIONAL POWER, BAD APPLE}

The word “team” might sound sexier to some people, as they have heard: TEAM means Together Each Achieves More, 1+1>2, and all that noise we discussed as “the romance of teams.” {SIGNAL/NOISE}

Whenever you see a disagreement between the existing and the declared, and it bothers you, the procedure is simple: check your optics by asking others.

If they also see the disagreement, enquire with the responsible person about the difference.

The only positive response is when the person acts to resolve the disagreement. Any other response is a red flag.

{COMMON SENSE, CRAPPY JOINT, RED FLAG, CRAPPY BOSSES, CALIBRATE YOUR PERCEPTION}

If you are not in a supervisory role, it is not your task—the supervisor's.

However, you can still have open and honest conversations with them, and if necessary, speak to the supervisor about your concerns. Yet, try not to look like a snitch ratting on the peers to get some attention from the boss. {POSITIONAL POWER}

If you are their boss, then ensure that you have proper communication routines, that they understand what they need to do, and that your deadlines have meaning.

{ECPM, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, LACK OF MOTIVATION, CURSE OF ACTION}

Although a group's success probability depends on the time it has spent together, I doubt universally applicable numbers can exist.

Yes, it might be true that becoming good friends takes 200-300 hours and acquaintances – 50 on average, as Dr. Hall suggested in 2018. However, it depends on more parameters in groups larger than two people.

For instance, it will depend on how much communication, trust, and competence the work requires.

It will depend on the quality of the members: Are they competent? Do they have experience in group work (for instance, some data shows that experience in team sports helps them become better team members)? Do they have quirks and idiosyncrasies?

It will also have a chance component: maybe you will have people with whom you immediately have some chemistry—positive or negative. In the latter case, group work might be difficult.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, DAILY INCREMENTS, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

You are at risk of clique formation whenever your group has several people who are more alike than the rest—similar age, education, ethnicity, etc.—especially if there are more than five people in the group. Then, the group can quickly lose homogeneity and become clusterized.

However, having clusters is okay in many cases. People meet at work (task orientation), make friends, and enrich their work experience with socio-emotional components. It’s good. {THE DICHOTOMY, HETEROGENEITY}

The cluster becomes “bad,” i.e., a clique when it adopts goals contrary to the group’s goals—do the bare minimum at work, use work facilities for personal gain, and make the organization dependent on the clique.

The cluster also becomes a problem when its members impair the lives of other group members.

{CLIQUE, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

Subgrouping will happen in any large group: it is easier to communicate in a smaller group.

Observe big parties (i.e., temporary groups).

Unless the activity is organized to allow everyone to participate, people rarely communicate in large groups. They split into couples, triplets, or quadruplets and communicate inside them.

Why? Because of groups’ spatio-temporal characteristics.

In such a group, you have a certain distance between you. This distance must be short enough for you to hear and see each other without exerting effort on your sensors, and it must be long enough not to feel discomfort from being at a too-intimate distance. Groups larger than four cannot allow people to do that.

The same goes for groups that exist longer. Maintaining relations in large groups is problematic.

One student shared an experience of having a friend group of seven people that later had a subgroup of three sequestered, and the remaining four felt hurt.

The four never tried to find out why they were excluded from the communication—which might have been the optimal tactic—and that feeling persevered. The real reason might have been the group size—seven—which was hard to maintain for long. It took too much effort.

Indeed, there might be bad feelings of being neglected and not included in a subgroup, but this is how life goes. Given freedom, people communicate with those whom they like. Sometimes, you are unwelcome and have to live with it.

It does not mean you are worse—you just do not fit in—as the “Ugly Duckling” did not fit among the creatures of the barnyard. He did not belong to the barnyard in the first place. Being a swan, he belonged to beautiful forest lakes. {ADEQUACY}

The problem with subgrouping only appears when subgroups start deranging the group’s work with dysfunctional norms or opposing goals.

{CLIQUES, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

Doing anything, be prepared for resentment. {CURSE OF ACTION}

Next, clarify for yourself why the subgroup is “unbeneficial?” Maybe you treat it like one because they prefer to drink coffee with each other and not with you. Then, it is not yet “unbeneficial.” 

The subgroup becomes harmful if its goals contradict or hinder group goals or if its members terrorize others. {CLIQUE, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

If a clique harms the group, it’s critical to try to understand what they want and still encourage them with the group goal. This step is important, as even if you fail, you (and others) will know that you tried. {COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

If it does not work, you can do what teachers have been doing for ages—sit them at different desks, i.e., minimize their communication. You can locate them in different places or include them in different projects.

However, be prepared that sometimes the only way to destroy a clique is to fire its members. At least the most active ones. (WEED-OUT, POSITIONAL POWER)

Encouraging members of cliques to rat on one another or partake in similar activities we omit; after all, destroying a clique, you should not destroy yourself.

Different ways exist in various environments: buying members, discrediting leaders, moving members to other areas to prevent communication, etc. Sometimes, firing will do.

However, when destroying anything, you must not destroy yourself.

{WEED-OUT, CLIQUE, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

The more people are committed to the common goal, the more skilled they are, and the less selfish they are, the higher their chances for success as a group.

However, these qualities can contradict one another in many people. For example, the higher the competence and self-efficacy, the more ego orientation and the less cohesion.

Also, as any group is about relationships, be prepared that all stars in a group never guarantee the star team. As we discussed, the main product of the group of stars might be perpetual fighting for the status of the biggest of them all.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, ADEQUACY, GROUP GOAL MIX}

The pros are that you like and trust the person; the con is that you will lose the friend if your work-related qualities do not match.

You might like the person as a friend because of the qualities that make him a lousy partner.

It is better to test all the pros and cons in a workshop than in a business.

{THE DICHOTOMY, TRUST, ADEQUACY, BUILD YOUR LAB}

First, you have to define it clearly.

What is the “team’s morale?” Is it being proud of belonging to a particular group? Or is it focused on a group’s goal? Or is it backing fellow members? There is an overlap between the three, yet these are separate phenomena. {COHESION}

Next, certain things are mutually exclusive.

For instance, have you ever considered how cohesion affects groupthink?

When you plan an approach to a goal, you must use the best information possible and process it in the best way. Often, opinions on the best way may contradict one another, leading to an internal conflict. If you have a lovely atmosphere and climate, you might split between two competing goals—prove others wrong and preserve the friendly team spirit.

Please focus on the group’s goal, adequate competencies of its members, effective communication, and mutual respect; other things will follow.

{THE DICHOTOMY, COHESION, GROUP GOAL MIX, HETEROGENEITY, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

Free riding has consequences besides doing less than required. It is contagious.

One “bad apple” spoils the barrel because, in many instances, the bad behavior is easier or more appealing.

It is easier not to do something than to perform and exert resources. It is easier not to respect deadlines than to meet them. And attracting attention by defying group norms is an appealing way to increase status for some. {HIERARCHY}

Thus, the group dynamic will deteriorate if you do not engage. Repairing is harder than preventing it. So, interfere. The more you linger, the more difficult it becomes. {ONE SIMMON MO, BAD APPLE, PROCRASTINATION}

There is a nuance, though. You might want to observe how people behave when they can act the way they want (i.e., in the wild). This will give you a lot of information on particular people.

Is there a clear border between letting and not letting go? No. You decide it yourself based on your experience and common sense. {COMMON SENSE, CALIBRATE YOUR PERCEPTION}

Next, understand that free-riding might not be a sign of ill will but misunderstanding. Then, communicate and explain.

Free-riding might be a symptom of unhealthy organizational processes—people cannot input. Alternatively, they do not want to input as they see that their effort will be multiplied by zero with the existing inefficiencies. {LACK OF MOTIVATION, PERMIES, CRAPPY JOINT, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Find out the reason and decide on the approach.

Regarding relationships, remember that somebody will not like whatever you do, no matter what you do. Thus, take it easy.

{CURSE OF ACTION}

It depends on how they think you should use it.

No one should expect you to work on weekends and public holidays or spend 20 hours a day at work.

You can politely withdraw all these “When we were your age, we worked 24/7” statements.

The folks likely remember extremes, and if they pulled a couple of all-nighters during their Ph.D. project, they extrapolate now to impress and influence.

Be impressed. Respond with solemn awe. You might round your eyes, raise your brows, and shake your head in admiration.

Do not be influenced.

If they are rational, try to persuade them from your perspective. If they are not, do what you think is right, and see how far you can get away with this.

If you cannot get away with it, then think of quitting.

But anyway, arrange your future place of work when you have the present. Prepare your resource base.

Also, test the trade union system: what will they pay you if you lose the job? Will they provide a lawyer if you have a conflict?

{CRAPPY JOINT, TEST THE SYSTEM, THE 5 EXCHANGES, CRAPPY BOSSES, SUSTENANCE}

Why change it?

There are many people we do not and should not like. Don’t force yourself.

At work, we better concentrate on work, and if we like our colleagues, we can treat it as a nice bonus. {THE DICHOTOMY}

Yet, understanding why you do not like somebody might be an insightful experience. We are very sensitive to the vices in others that we possess ourselves.

Thus, probe deeper into the reasons for your dislike and write them down for yourself, item by item.

Recollect and write down a couple of situations when you experienced the dislike to see if you possess some of those qualities. Then, think about what to do.

{CALIBRATE YOUR PERCEPTION, RED FLAG, GAUGING EMOTIONS}

These units are called “pockets of creativity” or “skunk works” in large corporations.

Why are small units allowed to operate outside a company’s standard procedures and systems beneficial?

They are more efficient.

Large organizations are often slow responders, and it is not that people there are unaware of easier ways of doing things; frequently, they cannot do things “easier.” There are chains of command; there is the embeddedness of the organization in the procedures of other organizations: committees, agencies, unions, etc. These impede work speed and efficiency.

{CONSTRAINTS OF A SYSTEM, CRAPPY JOINT, CURSE OF ACTION}

Running volunteer organizations is challenging.

There are a few things that make it so. Such groups consist of “volunteers”—people working pro bono, i.e., for free. (We do not consider the third-sector organizations at which people get paid for their, hopefully, beneficial work).

People working for free either do it after or instead of their main job. In the first case, they might be tired. In the second case, they might lack valuable skills or knowledge the job market demands, and thus, they are unemployed.

Next, any work requires discipline and effort. Still, if you run a volunteer organization, it would be challenging to order people to respect deadlines and provide a certain level of quality. Your managerial toolbox is almost empty. What can you give, and what can you withdraw?{MOTIVATION THEORIES, THE DICHOTOMY}

Are there stable volunteer organizations that possess good discipline? Yes. These are sects and cults. There, people can even bring their material belongings for the sake of the group.

Non-religious organizations that successfully make members work for free resemble sects and cults.

What will they have in common?

The payback part of any activity is in (emotional) tokens that only have value for this cult—the guru thanks you in front of the flock or mounts your photo on some glory wall.

Alternatively, the payback will happen after you die—thus, what you do here in life is score points for the afterlife. {THE 5 EXCHANGES}

What do you do if you still want to run a successful volunteer organization without turning it into a cult?

A goal, rational and skillful people believing in it, freedom of participation, and explicit norms of conduct.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, GROUND RULES}

There are no specific structures for volunteers, yet in any group work, two things must be in place: first, the group goal, which must be valuable for the members, and second—explicit norms of conduct (ground rules).

And, of course, the ability to weed out people who do not perform.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, GROUND RULES, WEED-OUT, GROUP GOAL MIX}

There is no rule, and there can be no rule.

Yes, it can lead to preferential treatment, which other employees can later see as... preferential treatment.

{THE DICHOTOMY, COMMON SENSE, POSITIONAL POWER, I-DEALS}

Ground rules are established by those who have the power to develop rules and expect others to abide by them. {POSITIONAL POWER}

What can a Ph. D. student do? Practice self-respect, consistency, networking, and team playing. Also, a Ph.D. student can suggest certain things to those with power.

{TRIAL AND ERROR, GROUND RULES, COMMON SENSE}

You find the balance by trial and error: practice, make mistakes, reflect on them, and adjust your behavior. {TRIAL AND ERROR}

However, this balance in your organization will always depend on the political and economic context.

If the social security system in a country works fine, it is one story, and you can be more demanding at work. When social security is non-existent, organizations sometimes will assume the role of an assistance provider and keep people on payroll so they do not perish.

Then, productivity and efficiency will not be among the priorities. The low work standards will naturally affect the political and economic context of the country, and we will likely see vicious circles and spirals.

{THE DICHOTOMY, CONSTRAINTS OF A SYSTEM}

First, you understand the dichotomy of being loved vs. being respected. {THE DICHOTOMY}

In work groups, the latter—i.e., being respected—is a must.

You can reflect it in your communication using a narrow emotional bandwidth—formal communication. It will set the tone, making it easier to demand with this tone.

Later, you can broaden the bandwidth. It will be easier and is usually very well-met.

If you later appear more humane than at the beginning, it would be welcomed and seen as a gift, while in the reverse case, employees might see it as violating the implied contract: “We thought that we all were friends here.”

{COHESION, SUBJECTIVITY}

Be clear about your goals—having work done or having a good time. {THE DICHOTOMY}

While maintaining this balance might be challenging, being respected at work is the optimal way to run it.

I recommend starting with a narrow emotional bandwidth—be professional, not overly affectionate.

{SIGNAL/NOISE, HIERARCHY, LEADER: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, POSITIONAL POWER}

When climbing hazel trees to get nuts, the best teammates are squirrels. Yet, you rarely can pick and choose, so be prepared to disembark the unfit—the weed-out approach.

Moreover, predicting how a person will behave in a new and challenging situation is hard.

{WEED-OUT, COMMON SENSE, ADEQUACY}

If something is not a problem, don’t fix it. {COMMON SENSE}

Cohesion is not an elemental parameter you always need to increase, so spending resources on “improving it” might be unwise. {COHESION, THE DICHOTOMY}

If a problem arises, a group goal, accepted by the group, is the best denominator for any workgroup—not stomping balloons, dropping eggs, or jumping in bags.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, ADEQUACY}

All group goals belong to two categories—work- and emotion-oriented, and all processes in existing groups bifurcate the same way: work-oriented and emotional. {THE DICHOTOMY}

It's important to recognize that both work- and emotion-oriented goals coexist, even in groups primarily focused on work. The emotional aspect ensures that everyone feels positive in the workplace.

Focus on two main things. First, the presence of a shared goal. Is there a common goal? Are you certain others comprehend it and are equally invested in it? How can you be sure?

Second, ensure everyone feels okay in the group.

{GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, ENDPOINT TIERS}