Twitter  Quartz found an unlikely inspiration for its relaunched homepage: The email newsletter.  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

MIT management professor Tom Malone on collective intelligence and the “genetic” structure of groups

Do groups have genetic structures? If so, can they be modified?

Those are two central questions for Thomas Malone, a professor of management and an expert in organizational structure and group intelligence at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. In a talk this week at IBM’s Center for Social Software, Malone explained the insights he’s gained through his research and as the director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, which he launched in 2006 in part to determine how collective intelligence might be harnessed to tackle problems — climate change, poverty, crime — that are generally too complex to be solved by any one expert or group. In his talk, Malone discussed the “genetic” makeup of collective intelligence, teasing out the design differences between, as he put it, “individuals, collectively, and a collective of individuals.”

The smart group

First is the question of whether general cognitive ability — what we think of, when it comes to individuals, as “intelligence” — actually exists for groups. (Spoiler: it does.) Malone and his colleagues, fellow MIT researchers Sandy Pentland and Nada Hashmi, Carnegie Mellon’s Anita Williams Woolley, and Union College’s Christopher Chabrisassembled 192 groups — groups of two to five people each, with 699 subjects in all — and assigned to them various cognitive tasks: planning a shopping trip for a shared house, sharing typing assignments in Google Docs, tackling Raven’s Matrices as a group, brainstorming different uses for a brick. (For you social science nerds, the team chose those assignments based on Joe McGrath‘s taxonomy of group tasks.) Against the results of those assignments, the researchers compared the results of the participants’ individual intelligence tests, as well as the varying qualities of the group, from the easily quantifiable (participants’ gender) to the less so (participants’ general happiness).

And what they found is telling. “The average intelligence of the people in the group and the maximum intelligence of the people in the group doesn’t predict group intelligence,” Malone said. Which is to say: “Just getting a lot of smart people in a group does not necessarily make a smart group.” Furthermore, the researchers found, group intelligence is also only moderately correlated with qualities you’d think would be pretty crucial when it comes to group dynamics — things like group cohesion, satisfaction, “psychological safety,” and motivation. It’s not just that a happy group or a close-knit group or an enthusiastic group doesn’t necessarily equal a smart group; it’s also that those psychological elements have only some effect on groups’ ability to solve problems together.

So how do you engineer groups that can problem-solve effectively? First of all, seed them with, basically, caring people. Group intelligence is correlated, Malone and his colleagues found, with the average social sensitivity — the openness, and receptiveness, to others — of a group’s constituents. The emotional intelligence of group members, in other words, serves the cognitive intelligence of the group overall. And this means that — wait for it — groups with more women tend to be smarter than groups with more men. (As Malone put it: “More females, more intelligence.”) That’s largely mediated by the researchers’ social sensitivity findings: Women tend to be more socially sensitive than men — per Science! — which means that, overall, more women = more emotional intelligence = more group intelligence.

Which, yay. And it’s easy to see a connection between these findings and the work of journalists — who, whether through crowdsourcing or commentary, are trying to figure out the most productive ways to amplify, and generally benefit from, the wisdom of crowds. News outfits are experimenting not just with inviting group participation in their work, but also with, intriguingly, defining the groups whose participation they invite — the starred commenters, the “brain trust” of readers, etc. Those experiments are based, in turn, on a basic insight: that the “who” of groups matters as much as the “how.” Attention to the makeup of groups on a more granular, person-to-person level may extend the benefits even further.

The group genome

But where Professor Malone’s ideas get especially interesting from the Lab’s perspective is in another aspect of his work: the notion that groups have, in their structural elements, a kind of dynamic DNA. Malone and his colleagues — in this case, Robert Laubacher and Chrysanthos Dellarocas — are essentially trying to map the genome of human collectivity, the underlying structure that determines groups’ outcomes. The researchers break the “genes” of groups down to interactions among four basic (and familiar) categories: what, who, why, and how. Or, put another way: what the project is, who’s working to enact it, why they’re working to enact it, and what methods they’re using to enact it. (So the “genetic structure” of the Linux community, for example, breaks down to relationship among the what of creating new tools and shaping existing ones; the who of the crowd combined with Linus Torvalds, and his lieutenants; the why of love, glory, and, to an extent, financial gain; and the how of both collaboration and hierarchical ordering. The interplay among all those factors determines the community’s outward expression and outcomes.)

That all seems simple and obvious — because it is — but what makes the approach so interesting and valuable from the future-of-news perspective is, among other things, its disaggregation of project and method and intention. Groups form for all kinds of reasons, but we generally pay little attention to the discrete factors that lead them to form and flourish. Just as understanding humans’ genetic code can lead us to a molecular understanding of ourselves as individuals, mapping the genome of groups may help us understand ourselves as we behave within a broader collective.

And that knowledge, just as with the human genome, might help us gain an ability to manipulate group structures. When it comes to individuals, intelligence is measurable — and, thus, it has a predictive element: A smart kid will most likely become a smart adult, with all the attendant implications. Individual intelligence is fairly constant, and, in that, almost impossible to change. Group intelligence, though, Malone’s findings suggest, can be manipulated — and so, if you understand what makes groups smart, you can adjust their factors to make them even smarter. The age-old question in sociology is whether groups are somehow different, and greater, than the sum of their parts. And the answer, based on Malone’s and other findings, seems to be “yes.” The trick now is figuring out why that’s so, and how the mechanics of the collective may be put to productive use. Measuring group intelligence, in other words, is the first step in increasing group intelligence.

Malone and his colleagues have identified 16 “genes” so far, as expressed in groups like Wikipedia contributors, YouTube uploaders, and eBay auctioneers. “We don’t believe this is the end, by any means, but we think it’s a start,” he said — a way to rethink, and perhaps even revolutionize, the design of groups. Organizational design theory in the 20th century, he noted, generally focused on traditional, hierarchical corporations. But as digital tools give way to new kinds of collectives, “it seems to me,” the professor said, that “it’s time to update organizational design theory for these new organizations.”

Image via ynse used under a Creative Commons license.

What to read next
Mark Coddington    Aug. 22, 2014
Plus: Controversy at Time Inc., more plagiarism allegations, and the rest of the week’s journalism and tech news.
  • MarketingXD

    This seems to be measuring the performance of a group when acting as a collective.

    This is only appropriate occasionally – you get better performance on many tasks when work is delegated, and this is how most people work for most of the time.

    For example, I assume that Professor Malone gave his talk personally – not alternating words with his colleagues. And nobody would try to drive a car “by committee”.

    It seems to have limited relevance.

  • MarketingXD

    This seems to be measuring the performance of a group when acting as a collective.

    This is only appropriate occasionally – you get better performance on many tasks when work is delegated, and this is how most people work for most of the time.

    For example, I assume that Professor Malone gave his talk personally – not alternating words with his colleagues. And nobody would try to drive a car “by committee”.

    It seems to have limited relevance.

  • Pingback: Sources of Group Intelligence in Decision Making « Growth


  • Pingback: ANALYSIS – India could benefit from U.S. | FEED NEWS

  • Anonymous

    Nice article.Thanks for sharing. Work Plan Platform


    Great study! I totally agree that “as digital tools give way to new kinds of collectives, it’s also a time “update organizational design theory for these new organizations.” These digital tools were not at all present in the past and they have been very useful today and for the next generation. Thus, there’s really a big difference!

    Here’s another interesting read on the strategies for harnessing the collective intelligence of the crowd,

  • RajagopalSreenivasan

    The concept of collective intelligence is also illustrated in the work by James Surowiecki in the book Wisdom of Crowds

  • Pingback: Tips on Enterprise 2.0 with Web 2.0 » Blog Archive » Harvard Business Review:The Future of Work & Social Business Leadership Gamification

  • Giacomo

    MXD. True I suppose, but if the goal is to tap into collective intelligence, then one has to consider task dependency and complexity. If I send someone to get me a coffee, well, one person can do that. If solutions to tougher peoblems than my need for caffeine arise, that involve greater complexity and deoendencies between more than one person’s knowledge or skills, then a team may be formed. The insghts in the work are about those situations. But to agree once agan with you, there are many tasks that are quite inappropriate for teams and situations when teams are inappropriate as well. But if the goal is potentially innovative solutions and teams that succeed in thier taks, then the research is quite interesting and valuable.

  • Pingback: Simoleon Sense » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup 127: A Curated Linkfest For The Smartest People On The Web

  • gregorylent

    baby steps towards a huge arena of knowledge … collective consciousness

    implications? ha, you can forget about ipr and copyright when collective consciousness is figured out :-)

  • Anonymous

    Almost all of the issues facing us as a global civilization are wicked problems. Wicked problems cannot be addressed from an individual viewpoint, they can only be addressed from a collective viewpoint. Understanding how to maximize collective intelligence is about the most relevant work to be involved with on the planet today.

  • Sandra Williams

    Sorry @MarketingXD but you may have missed the point. I think the article speaks to the value of harnessesing the collective intelligence of (effective) teams in solving complex problems – a kind of collective sense-making to gain insight. From insight actions can follow but there is not always a linear relationship between insight and action. I agree that Collective action would imply a far less efficient means of achieving your objective – but that’s not what Malone was suggesting I think.

  • Josey Cooper

    I’ve always felt/thought that the idea of quantifying intelligence is an interesting business in itself, let alone grouping it or engineering group intelligence. The emotional intelligence factor is an interesting addition, and that attributed particularly to being a quality of women. I suspect some of that may have generational and cultural factors, depending upon the degree of social responsibility conditioning. I would add to a long list of variables, which lead to successful group outcomes that a respectful approach to the ideas of others in the group might signal an intuitive grasp of the “possibility” that there are different manifestations of intelligence. Some manifestations might not, in fact, be good group material. I respect the various approaches to measuring intelligence that have come down through western scholarship; but there may be something missed from time to time by adhering to a quantifiable measurement — such as our own cultural biases, etc. In any case, I admire and appreciate the effort researchers and individuals are making to cipher what patterns might emerge that might yield useful guidelines for group composition. One fascinating component is the “apparently” human (and other animal) tendency for hierarchy to blossom within groups. I’ve often wondered if that is a “natural” asset that should be nurtured, encouraged, or even tolerated in some groups working on some outcomes. This article leads me to several questions, which may or may not be related to this particular project: Is quantifying intelligence a way of making hierarchy?
    If so, can it be used carefully and in a new way that
    helps us break away from some prior models that have left out certain voices?

  • Pingback: this n that | What's that you said?

  • Pingback: Liens vagabonds (12 mai) » Metamedia | La révolution de l'information

  • SVT Group

    Now if we could figure out how to get this insight integrated into venture capital circles, we’d be cooking with gas!

  • Pingback: MIT管理学教授谈集体智慧与团队“基因” - 小米分享

  • Pingback: On són els homes? | moutech

  • Pingback: Hur sätter man ihop en smart grupp? « networking – kvinnor i karriären diskuterar arbetsliv, familjeliv och karriär

  • Pingback: Girls Make Me Smarter |

  • Pingback: Women are safer than men | JOMC

  • Jesse Soininen

    Discussion about group dynamics seems to be upside down. Lot of talk about how to fix and alter existing group and reasoning why groups don´t have to have likeminded people. Can i hear someone tryig to fix an industrial age problem here? How about thinking groups as a self organising entities? Like Linux. I think people are naturally gravitated to each other if chemistry and interest areas are right. In the network economy the need to work under one roof is no longer the most important aspect and therefore groups can be created in a more organic manner. People swarmig and choosing with whom they want to partner.

  • ROBPicket

    These findings are very interesting. My team and I are building a program that is going to utilize social media to aggregate common problems that people face and use individual opinions and suggested solutions to those problems in an attempt to determine the most beneficial solution. I will certainly be following your research and would love any information or materials that you think may help our endeavor.