There is this old saying, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” meaning that working together, one can accomplish more than working alone. That if you breakdown individual effort, that effort would not add up to the effort those individuals give in a group. I think most people would agree with this saying but is there anything to it? Is it true? What factors are at play within a group that don’t necessarily happen with an individual? Although many factors are at play with group dynamics, one factor, the Köhler effect, can heighten group performance. 

Before we get into discussing the Kölhler effect, let’s talk about motivation. Motivation is a driving force in everyone’s lives. Motivation is about desire which shapes our behaviors, attention, and knowledge acquisition (Penn State University, 2021. para. 5). If we are not motivating about our goal at hand, our performance in accomplishing that goal can be diminished. On the other hand, motivation drives individuals, groups, and organizations to accomplish great things. Like the founding fathers motivation for freedom and liberty drove the creation of the United States. Or my motivation to write this article earlier in the week so I can play a new video game this weekend. For groups, motivation can create multipliers on output.

One such multiplier is the Kölher effect, which is when less-capable group members perform higher on group tasks versus working individually (Osborn et al., 2012, p. 242). When working in a group, there is a motivational effect that increases the overall performance of group members. Messé et al. (2002) looked at individual versus partner performance at the same task and found that the group score was significantly higher than the two individual scores at accomplishing that task (p. 939). This is the Köhler effect at work. 

One reason this effect happens is the mutual enthusiasm shared within the group (Kerr & Hertel, 2011, p. 45). Another factor is, according to Osborn et al. (2012), “the opportunity for social comparison that elicits motivational gains” (p. 243). In a group  made up of less-capable members grouped with more-capable members, the less-capable members showed greater gains in effort on group tasks than more-capable members (Osborn et al., 2012, p. 243). This gain by less-capable members of the group can be attributed to revision of personal goals to match or do better than the more-capable members (Kerr and Hertel, 2011, p. 45). This comparison can lead to a boost in group performance. 

Group feedback can boost the Kölher effect in groups. Performance feedback can improve group performance especially when all participants are told their and their group members feedback (Messé et al., 2002, p. 939). In fact, Osborn et al. (2012) found the biggest gains in group motivation and performance when the group received feedback on the group’s performance and that there was a drop in group motivation and performance when group members don’t know how each member performs (p. 243). This is particularly true for divisible tasks where one task’s completion is dependent on starting the next task. Motivational gains are found when a task is divisible and sequential because the individual performance is easily identifiable by the group causing social pressures to improve performance (Kerr & Hertel, 2011, p. 46). For example, Osborn et al. (2012), found that runners in a relay race had better performance in the group race than in their individual runs because the increased identifiability of the runner increased the desire to do well (p. 244). 

There are optimal pairings to maximize the Kölher effect to boost individual performance. Messé et al. (2002) found that maximized motivational gains are achieved when high performance group members are paired with “a moderate discrepancy in capabilities” group members (p. 936). The Kölher effect was less pronounced when the performance gap between team members was very high or very low (Messé et al., 2002, p. 936). Motivation decreases when higher performing group members anticipate making up for poor performers or the small difference in performance level does not provide enough social pressure to improve performance (Osborn et al., 2012, pp. 247-248). 

In my practice as a leader in technology, I have seen the Kölher effect at work. It is especially pronounced for mentorships which pair less-capable individuals with higher-capable individuals. I paired one of my senior developers with a new junior developer on a programming project. The tasks were defined, divisible, and assigned to each developer. Many of the tasks were sequential  meaning the next task could not be started until the previous task was complete. With deadlines, milestone meetings, mentorship, and feedback, the junior developer’s performance was outstanding. In the end, the higher-capable developer was able to mentor the junior while waiting on task completion while the junior was able to see the work of the senior developer and learn. This created motivation for the junior wanting to show their capabilities. 

There is more that goes onto group motivation outside of the Kölher effect. But, understanding this effect can help a leader build better teams. The weaker will work harder (effort) when paired with capable group members as long as there are optimal pairings where performance discrepancy is not too high (big difference is capability) or too low (little difference in capability). Giving team members feedback on their performance and the performance of other team members improves the overall performance of the team. Think of sports teams where every type of measure on performance is known by all where players watch films on their and their team members performances. When assigning tasks to groups, make tasks divisible and identifiable to create accountability and motivating social pressure. With these tools, a leader can create groups that are greater than the sum of its parts. 

Reference

Kerr, N. L., & Hertel, G. (2011). The köhler group motivation gain: How to motivate the ‘Weak links’ in a group: The köhler group motivation gain. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00333.x

Messé, L. A., Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Lount, R. B., & Park, E. S. (2002). Knowledge of partner’s ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: An exploration of the köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 935-946. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.935

McAfoose, E. (2021). Kölher Effect. [Image]

Osborn, K. A., Irwin, B. C., Skogsberg, N. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). The köhler effect: Motivation gains and losses in real sports groups. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1(4), 242-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026887

Penn State University. (2021). Social Learning. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2103357/modules/items/30942193

Selders, M. (2020). Penn State’s Kyle May. [Photograph] GoPSUSports.com. https://gopsusports.com/news/2020/2/26/mens-soccer-releases-2020-spring-slate.aspx