A very interesting piece from MIT on Collective intelligence and the \u201cgenetic\u201d structure of groups:<\/p>\n
First is the question of whether general cognitive ability \u2014 what we think of, when it comes to individuals, as \u201cintelligence\u201d \u2014 actually exists for groups. (Spoiler: it does.)<\/p>\n
And what they found is telling. \u201cThe average intelligence of the people in the group and the maximum intelligence of the people in the group doesn\u2019t predict group intelligence,\u201d Malone said. Which is to say: \u201cJust getting a lot of smart people in a group does not necessarily make a smart group.\u201d Furthermore, the researchers found, group intelligence is also only moderately correlated with qualities you\u2019d think would be pretty crucial when it comes to group dynamics \u2014 things like group cohesion, satisfaction, \u201cpsychological safety,\u201d and motivation. It\u2019s not just that a happy group or a close-knit group or an enthusiastic group doesn\u2019t necessarily equal a smart group; it\u2019s also that those psychological elements have only some effect on groups\u2019 ability to solve problems together.<\/p>\n
So how do you engineer groups that can problem-solve effectively? First of all, seed them with, basically, caring people. Group intelligence is correlated, Malone and his colleagues found, with the average social sensitivity \u2014 the openness, and receptiveness, to others \u2014 of a group\u2019s constituents. The emotional intelligence of group members, in other words, serves the cognitive intelligence of the group overall. And this means that \u2014 wait for it \u2014 groups with more women tend to be smarter than groups with more men. (As Malone put it: \u201cMore females, more intelligence.\u201d) That\u2019s largely mediated by the researchers\u2019 social sensitivity findings: Women tend to be more socially sensitive than men \u2014 per Science ! \u2014 which means that, overall, more women = more emotional intelligence = more group intelligence .<\/p>\n
But where Professor Malone\u2019s ideas get especially interesting from the Lab\u2019s perspective is in another aspect of his work: the notion that groups have, in their structural elements, a kind of dynamic DNA. Malone and his colleagues \u2014 in this case, Robert Laubacher and Chrysanthos Dellarocas \u2014 are essentially trying to map the genome of human collectivity , the underlying structure that determines groups\u2019 outcomes. The researchers break the \u201cgenes\u201d of groups down to interactions among four basic (and familiar) categories: what, who, why, and how. Or, put another way: what the project is, who\u2019s working to enact it, why they\u2019re working to enact it, and what methods they\u2019re using to enact it.<\/p>\n
…Group intelligence, though, Malone\u2019s findings suggest, can be manipulated \u2014 and so, if you understand what makes groups smart, you can adjust their factors to make them even smarter. The age-old question in sociology is whether groups are somehow different, and greater, than the sum of their parts. And the answer, based on Malone\u2019s and other findings, seems to be \u201cyes.\u201d The trick now is figuring out why that\u2019s so, and how the mechanics of the collective may be put to productive use. Measuring group intelligence, in other words, is the first step in increasing group intelligence.<\/p>\n
Malone and his colleagues have identified 16 \u201cgenes\u201d so far, as expressed in groups like Wikipedia contributors, YouTube uploaders, and eBay auctioneers. \u201cWe don\u2019t believe this is the end, by any means, but we think it\u2019s a start,\u201d he said \u2014 a way to rethink, and perhaps even revolutionize, the design of groups. Organizational design theory in the 20th century, he noted, generally focused on traditional, hierarchical corporations. But as digital tools give way to new kinds of collectives, \u201cit seems to me,\u201d the professor said, that \u201cit\u2019s time to update organizational design theory for these new organizations.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n