In the pursuit of breakthrough innovation, it is easy to be dazzled by star performers, from successful CEOs and prominent lawyers to award-winning scientists. Mention electric vehicles, and Elon Musk springs to mind; radioactivity research, and Marie Curie comes to the fore. However, this fixation can overshadow the crucial role played by the constellation of collaborators – most of us mere mortals – that surround the star.

In a new study published in Management Science, my fellow researchers* and I challenge the prevailing notion that stars are the dominant drivers of progress. Our analysis of more than 500 research projects at a leading university highlights the synergistic effects when talented individuals join forces. The most successful teams, we found, are those where neither the star nor their less-renowned colleagues dominate.

Our study has interesting implications for individuals and organisations across industries. Firms should prioritise building collaborative teams, where members complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses over recruiting and retaining top talent. Individuals should clearly define their unique value proposition and seek out complementary partners.

The rich become richer

Trying to measure individual contributions to a team is by no means easy or simple. The synergies among team members, the selection process that brings them together and the multidimensionality of their contributions are all factors to be considered.

One method relies on the identification of extreme events like the death of a CEO or star scientist, and measuring the pre- and post-event performance of their respective teams. Past research has identified two key mechanisms in the superior performance of teams with stars. The first is the Matthew effect. Often referred to as the “rich get richer” phenomenon, it describes how star performers attract more resources and opportunities, which amplifies their success and leads to more resources, and so on. The second is the spillover effect, where each party enhances the capabilities of their collaborator. The whole is then greater than the sum of the parts. (more…)

When conflicts in a team – no matter how minor – are left unresolved, it can eventually breed resentment. If unaddressed, this could lead to cynicism and distrust, as well as harm individual and team performance. How should leaders deal with this?

The intuitive answer might involve orchestrating frank, albeit difficult, conversations between the discordant parties. But such conversations are unlikely to lead to the desired reconciliation without a baseline of trust and goodwill. Research reveals that people become less cooperative when they expect others to be uncooperative. Instead, consider a slightly counterintuitive alternative: Get the employees who resent each other to rely on each other.

Think about the last time you desperately needed assistance from a colleague you didn’t particularly like but who was nevertheless able to deliver the help you required. You probably felt happy. Or relieved. Or both. At that moment, your prior issues fell by the wayside, and your positive feelings from receiving help were transferred to some extent to the individual who delivered. What’s more, the resentment likely subsided because you now have evidence that the other person can and will be motivated to help you.

This does not mean that longstanding conflicts were instantly resolved; that would require the frank and difficult dialogue mentioned earlier. But at this point, such a conversation can take place from a baseline of goodwill, making it more likely to succeed.

Co-dependency creates reciprocity

In the 1950s, psychologists Muzafer Sherif, Carolyn Wood Sherif and their team investigated how resentment and conflict can be quelled. They invited 22 teenage boys to camp out at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, United States. By all accounts, the boys should have gotten along famously. They had a lot in common, came from comparable backgrounds and shared similar likes and dislikes. 

But things went awry when the researchers split the boys into two teams and asked them to partake in various competitions such as tug-of-war and baseball, effectively pitting them against each other. Each team created their own team flags, hierarchies, customs and jargon organically. Soon, a spiral of escalation ensued. First came insults and name-calling between the two teams. Then, the stealing of valuables, including the rival team’s flag. Finally, one of the teams ransacked the other’s cabins in the middle of night. Surveying the boys, the researchers found they had developed starkly negative attitudes towards their rivals.

The researchers tried several ways to lower the temperature. An intuitive but mistaken first attempt was to ask the rival team members to engage freely in communication. Unfortunately, that evolved into a shouting match. The researchers realised that a baseline of goodwill and trust was needed, and found a better way: engaging the boys in tasks that made them depend on the rival team to achieve mutual goals.

The researchers were creative in orchestrating these situations. One day, water to the camp was blocked by a large boulder that could only be moved with the strength of the boys from both teams. Another day, the researchers let the boys rent a popular movie, but its cost and the convenient lack of budget meant that boys from both teams had to chip in. Over time, as the boys had to rely on one another, their hostile sentiments towards their rivals were replaced by favourable attitudes.  (more…)