Group Size and Split the Bill Problem!

Are larger or smaller groups better to get work done? Research on groups and teams tells us that there is an optimum group size (150- Dunbar Number) beyond which groups/teams become dysfunctional. Hence the need to split groups into smaller operational units once the number of people in the group exceeds 150.

What seems to be the problem? What do we mean by dysfunctionality? What happens in a larger society as compared to a smaller neighborhood? Why is it difficult to get work done through groups?

The other day I was reading about Venkat Krishnan (an IIMA graduate) and his entrepreneurial venture – Give India. He made a few interesting observations:

• He had traveled across the USA and he had found that the middle class there had a high sense of ownership.
• He compared this to the lack of ownership of the Indian middle class. He mentioned what Gandhi had said in the early 20^th century – that the Indian middle class would be the instrument to freedom.

This set me thinking. Tim Harford talks of Split the Bill problem. When there are multiple people involved, but no one has a significantly high majority stake and no one has individual accountability - then everyone tries to maximize individual pleasure/benefit and not look at the total picture. The summation of individual benefits doesn’t lead to an optimum solution at the group level.

I remember a study of different organizational types that concluded privately held organizations, or those with majority stakeholders, seem to do better than listed organizations (without any majority stakeholders).

One thing seems to be clear. Driving ownership and individual accountability seems to become harder as an organization grows in size. Probably that’s the reason why high growth organizations sometimes realize that stories of ‘discretion’ from across seem to thin down as they become larger.

Similarly, given India’s large population, driving ownership amongst citizens is a greater challenge than the challenge might be in countries with lesser population.

So what is the solution for organizations of large size? What can they do to make each employee take ownership for his/her decisions, which invariably would also impact his/her eco-system?

I can think of a few solutions:

• There are advantages of clearly delineating job responsibilities/duties but it also seems to drive unintended consequences. One of these unintended consequences is the mindset ‘My work is my work. Please don’t intrude into it. Your work is your work. I won’t intrude into it.’ In this case the team/group is just a collation of individuals. There are no synergies that emerge from having a team work on a problem. So the challenge is to ensure that job responsibilities specify/highlight what are the minimum expected requirements from the job while at the same time ensuring that employees are encourage to go beyond their job descriptions. How can this be done?
• ‘We can help others if we know what they are working on.’ This means that everyone needs to have clarity on what everyone else is working on. This would enable everyone to understand how their own actions might be impacting others and consequently take corrective action. This, along with understanding and accepting the larger organizational goal, would also form basis for collaboration amongst individuals/teams.

My proposed solution rests on the assumption that individuals are willing to extend themselves for purposes beyond their own immediate benefit.

What other solutions can you think of to drive ownership in large teams?

-

Sourav

HR-Team Discussions

What are town hall discussions between HR Managers and teams they work with meant to accomplish?

Visualize a HR Manager having a discussion with a team of around 15-20 employees. What should be the content of the discussion? Who all should be there? What should be the decision making process during such discussions?

Here are a few thoughts:

• I frequently hear that it helps line function to get an independent point of view on health of HR processes in a team. This is the reason why HR Managers usually meet teams without representation from the line hierarchy. But at the end of day, implementation would have to be done by line function. Hence it is necessary that all relevant people are present in the room. Until and unless it is an exigency (e.g.- a complaint against the boss needs to be investigated), the team should always be met along with their reporting manager. The reporting manager has implementation authority when it comes to his team, and any solution proposed which does not having his buy-in would not work.
• There might be situations when reporting manager or other key stakeholders are not in the room. In such situations it is necessary that all stakeholders are talked to before a conclusion is formed on any issue. So when points are raised by team about important stakeholders not present in the room, the HR Manager should mention something like ‘I’ve heard what you guys have to say on this issue. I would further talk to XYZ person to understand his take on the issue. I would get back to you on the way ahead by around this time.’
• Such forums can be used to discuss in detail certain key HR initiatives/processes being focused on in the year and get the team’s buy-in for implementation at the local level. Hence it is necessary that HR Manager is clear about initiatives/processes he would discuss and what outcomes he would aim for in the meeting.
• Such forums are a place to explore health of HR processes in team. This is not easy to evaluate. For any HR process there are 2 levels of evaluation. First, has process being executed in letter? E.g – have goal setting, mid term reviews, and end term reviews happened for each team member? Second, has the process being executed in spirit? This is where an exploration of how the conversation in each part of the process was would help. The objective at this second level is around – was that particular conversation effective in meeting objectives of the process?
• Such forums also provide an opportunity to understand intra-team dynamics. Is this team effective? How are the relations within the team? Again the unit of observation and analysis would be conversations within the team.
• It is important that clarifications on road ahead are made. Whatever can be committed to should be committed to right away. A note to all stakeholders who were not present in the room should be sent. The objective is to ensure these stakeholders also understand what behaviors they might need to change or what the team expects from them.
• There is a possibility that a HR Manager comes across a team which acts powerless or doesn’t take ownership for issues it faces. The primary objective of the discussion in such meetings would be to make the team members aware of the dysfunctional role they are playing and egg them on take ownership to resolve the issues they want resolution to.

-

Sourav