4.3 – Synergy

Earlier in Chapter 1, when speaking about the advantages and disadvantages of working in small groups, we touched a bit on synergy. However, there is much more to the concept than how we briefly broke it down. In this section, we will cover the concept more in depth.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Groups¹

As with anything, small groups have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of small groups include shared decision-making, shared resources, synergy, and exposure to diversity. It is within small groups that most of the decisions that guide our country, introduce local laws, and influence our family interactions are made. In a democratic society, participation in decision-making is a key part of citizenship. Groups also help in making decisions involving judgment calls that have ethical implications or the potential to negatively affect people. Individuals making such high-stakes decisions in a vacuum could have negative consequences given the lack of feedback, input, questioning, and proposals for alternatives that would come from group interaction. Group members also help expand our social networks, which provide access to more resources. A local community theater group may be able to put on a production with a limited budget by drawing on these connections to get set-building supplies, props, costumes, actors, and publicity in ways that an individual could not. The increased knowledge, diverse perspectives, and access to resources that groups possess relate to another advantage of small groups—synergy.

Synergy refers to the potential for gains in performance or heightened quality of interactions when complementary members or member characteristics are added to existing ones. James R. Larson Jr., In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance (New York: Psychology Press, 2010). Because of synergy, the final group product can be better than any individual could have produced alone. Take for example the story of Jasmine, who worked in housing and residence life. She helped coordinate a “World Cup Soccer Tournament” for the international students who lived in her residence hall. As a group, they created teams representing different countries around the world, made brackets for people to track progress and predict winners, got sponsors, gathered prizes, and ended up with a very successful event that would not have been possible without the synergy created by the collective group membership. The members of this group were also exposed to international diversity that enriched their experiences, which is also an advantage of group communication.

Participating in groups can also increase our exposure to diversity and broaden our perspectives. Although groups vary in the diversity of their members, we can strategically choose groups that expand our diversity, or we can unintentionally end up in a diverse group. When we participate in small groups, we expand our social networks, which increases the possibility of interacting with people who have different cultural identities than ourselves. Since group members work together toward a common goal, shared identification with the task or group can give people with diverse backgrounds a sense of commonality that they might not have otherwise. Even when group members share cultural identities, the diversity of experience and opinion within a group can lead to broadened perspectives as alternative ideas are presented and opinions are challenged and defended. One of my favorite parts of facilitating a class discussion is when students with different identities and/or perspectives teach one another things in ways that I could not do on my own. This example brings together the potential of synergy and diversity. People who are more introverted or just avoid group communication and voluntarily distance themselves from groups—or are rejected from groups—risk losing opportunities to learn more about others and themselves.

There are also disadvantages to small group interaction. In some cases, one person can be just as or more effective than a group of people. Think about a situation in which a highly specialized skill or knowledge is needed to get something done. In this situation, one very knowledgeable person is probably a better fit for the task than a group of less knowledgeable people. Group interaction also has a tendency to slow down the decision-making process. Individuals connected through a hierarchy or chain of command often work better when decisions must be made under time constraints. When group interaction does occur under time constraints, having one “point person” or leader who coordinates action and gives final approval or disapproval on ideas or suggestions for actions is best.

Group communication also presents interpersonal challenges. A common problem is coordinating and planning group meetings due to busy and conflicting schedules. Some people also have difficulty with the other-centeredness and self-sacrifice that some groups require. The interdependence of group members that we discussed earlier can also create some disadvantages. Group members may take advantage of the anonymity of a group and engage in social loafing, meaning they contribute less to the group than other members or than they would if working alone. Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams, “Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, no. 4 (1993): 681. Social loafers expect that no one will notice their behaviors or that others will pick up their slack. It is this potential for social loafing that makes many students and professionals dread group work, especially those who have a tendency to cover for other group members to prevent the social loafer from diminishing the group’s productivity or output.

Negative Synergy²

Negative synergy is alive and (not) well. Smart individuals gather and produce a bad result. While it is an example from pop culture, take a look at the negative synergy that thrives in the following clip:

Synergy is when several people gather and do something that’s better than what they could do individually. The term has been used and misused enough to create cynicism, but synergy is real. Though the example in the film was based on a small group of friends, negative synergy also occurs in the workplace. In fact, it happens often, and it wastes time, money, and people. There are, however, things that we can and should do about it.

Negative synergy is that inexplicable phenomenon that can happen in meetings. I have seen it too often. Smart, hardworking, conscientious people gather, waste time, and make a bad decision. Afterward, the participants admitted individually that the result of the meeting was a bad decision. How can every individual know that the decision was terrible, yet as a group agree to it?

There are many causes of negative synergy. One is poor meeting fundamentals. The people involved don’t have an agenda, are not sure why they are in a meeting, and attempt to tackle complex issues without preparation. Another cause is a lack of safety in the meeting. The participants don’t feel safe to say what they truly feel and vote their conscience. Their desire to be part of the group pushes them to agree with what they think the group will decide. Finally, the meeting may be based on a false foundation. The people are deciding something over which they have neither the authority to decide nor the ability to execute. The resulting decision is meaningless, and it’s probably a bad decision.

The result of negative synergy is waste. The meeting is a waste of time for everyone involved, and time is money (literally, that’s not just a cliche). If a bad decision is implemented, look out. The worst part is the waste of people. People leave these meetings frustrated. They know something is wrong with how they conduct meetings and make decisions, but cannot see it and fix it. They cannot stand to participate in it, so they quit. Some quit and leave, while others quit and stay.

There are things we can do to help fight negative synergy. We should start by addressing basic meeting practices. Would it be best for an individual to handle the item the meeting is about to address? If so, don’t hold a meeting — problem solved. If it is appropriate for a group, employ time-proven meeting techniques. Have an agenda everyone agrees to ahead of time, prepare all participants, use an impartial facilitator, use ground rules, stay focused, do your business, make your decision, and move on.

Second, hold safe meetings. The facilitator should poll the participants in an anonymous manner to determine if they feel safe to speak and vote. If not, stop the meeting. Address the issues of safety and trust first. If people at work are afraid, nothing else they try to do will matter or work properly.

Third, use the false foundation test. We do this last because we can have an agenda and safety, but still have a meeting based on a false foundation. Apply this test after the meeting basics are in place and the facilitator has established a safe environment.

1. State: “We are here to do (fill in the blank).”
2. Ask: “Do we possess the necessary knowledge and authority to do (fill in the blank)?”

If the answer to 2 is no, go back to 1 and change (fill in the blank). If the answer is yes, conduct the meeting and allow positive synergy to work.

Negative synergy is real; we’ve all seen it. It is our own fault (there is no monster lurking in the halls tricking us into this practice). We all have the authority to eliminate it, or we can continue to complain quietly and allow it to continue.