A group working in deliberate harmony toward one aim is claimed to generate capability beyond the sum of its members.
Hill's proposal is a structured peer group meeting regularly with a shared purpose, and the practice has outlasted the theory. The mechanism he claimed is a third mind arising from the harmony of the group; the mechanisms with evidence are accountability, distributed knowledge and social pressure, none of which requires anything mystical.
In practice
- A peer group that meets monthly and reviews commitments works, and the reason is that somebody will ask.
- A team assembled for harmony rather than for complementary knowledge agrees quickly and adds nothing.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation offered is a third mind arising from harmony among members. The mechanisms with evidence are simpler: accountability to a group, access to others' information, and commitment made in public.
- In its favour
- The practice has outlasted the theory because peer groups do help, and research on accountability and on commitment in front of others supports the parts that work.
- Against it
- Group performance research finds process losses more often than gains, with groups underperforming their best member on many tasks, and the evidence offered is testimonial and selected on success.
- Standing
- Testimonial evidence selected on success, with no comparison group. Group performance research finds process losses more often than gains, and the conditions under which groups beat individuals are narrow and specified.
- Subject
- Creativity & Work
- Essay
- The success literature and its sceptics