1. Group Tasks & Task Types
MURI QUANTA Project
Kayla de la Haye
Jen Labrecque
September

2. Groups & Group Tasks Groups: Group tasks: Research Goal:
a collection of individuals who are mutually aware of one another , their interdependence, and shared purpose/objective/goal
Group tasks:
a task performed by a group (very broad)
includes: instructions for acting on a ‘stimulus complex’ (physical/social/conceptual inputs) and goal directives (and potentially procedural directives)
Research Goal:
understand the factors and processes that impact group performance on group tasks
Larson, 2010

3. Models of Group Performance
The ‘population’ of groups and group tasks is large and varied
To meet our research goal, we want to develop models of group performance on group tasks that are:
generalizable – they identify common factors that explain performance for many groups on many tasks
have good predictive validity across contexts and task types
identify important factors and processes
Larson, 2010

4. Components of Group Performance
Performance effectiveness: how well groups perform on specific tasks
Combined abilities and skills of group members
Group interaction/behavior: the collaborative activities of the group done to accomplish the task
Performance integrity: the ability of the group to perform over time
The effectiveness of the group over time: if this is maintained, increases, or declines
Larson, 2010

5. Components of Group Tasks
Q: Why think about task components and task types?
Different tasks place different demands on a group
This can have important effects on group processes and group performance
Task type can explain substantial variability in group performance (maybe 50%, Larson, 2010)
Ideally, our models of group performance can
predict performance consistencies (e.g., ‘collective intelligence’)
and provide parsimonious and useful explanations of performance variability due to task types

6. Taxonomies of Group Tasks
Starting point: a comprehensive population of group tasks
Goal of group task taxonomies is to identify:
underlying properties/dimensions of tasks and their relationships to one another
meaningful similarities and differences across tasks
important task dimensions that significantly impact group processes / effectiveness, and so explain performance variability
Value of taxonomies:
informing generalizability: results apply to similar types of tasks
theory building: identify factors that explain performance on related tasks and the underlying mechanisms
Larson, 2010

7. Task Domains: Key Concepts
Idea-generation tasks:
tasks that require novel and creative ideas
Problem-solving tasks:
tasks with an objectively correct answer
Judgment tasks:
tasks with a very difficult (if not impossible to determine) objectively correct answer
Decision-making tasks:
tasks where the best answer may be difficult to determine, and which typically call for a choice (identifying the best choice) among a set of discrete alternatives
These are broad concepts – types of tasks – that are reflected in many taxonomies we’ll look at
Larson, 2010

8. Shaw’s Multi-dimensional Analysis of Task Structure
Early, quantitative approach to taxonomies
Factor analysis of attributes for over 104 varied group tasks
Identified 6 underlying task dimensions
Task difficulty
Solution multiplicity
Cooperation requirements
Intellectual-manipulative requirements
Population familiarity
Intrinsic interest
Early analysis – data driven but potentially biased – they defined the attributes to score each task on
>not currently dominants - but informed future taxonomies and approaches to defining them
-one of the few data driven approaches to categorizing..
Shaw, 1963

9. Laughlin’s Intellective-Judgmental Continuum
Correct Solutions
Judgmental
No objectively correct solution
Focus on differences in problem-solving tasks based on one key dimension
Intellective tasks:
with demonstrable solutions: the answer is obvious once proposed
just one person needs to find the solution for group to adopt it
without demonstrable solutions: the correct answer is not easily identifiable to nonsolvers
requires more group members/complex group processes for the group to adopt it
Judgmental tasks:
not demonstrable: group must establish what they believe is correct
dependent on group processes (e.g., majority decisions, leaders)
Laughlin, 1980/1986

10. McGrath’s Group Task Circumplex Model

11. McGrath’s Group Task Circumplex Model
Basic organization:
8 task types, mutually exclusive & exhaustive
Task types are related according to underlying 2- dimensional structure:
Horizontal axis: Mental / conceptual vs physical / behavioral
Vertical axis: Conflict vs cooperation within group
4 quadrants specifying the required performance processes, each w/ 2 task types
McGrath, 1984

12. McGrath’s Group Task Circumplex Model
Quadrant I. Generate
Something is created or produced
Task types differentiated by action-orientation
Planning tasks – generate action-oriented plans / how to achieve the goal
Ex/ Specify the sequence of steps that must be followed to successfully organize and run a charity dance marathon
Creativity tasks – generate ideas that don’t have a strong action orientation
Ex/ Brainstorming ideas for how to spend $10,000
cooperation

13. McGrath’s Group Task Circumplex Model
Quadrant II. Choose
Select a choice (from alternatives)
Task types differentiated by whether there is an objectively correct answer:
Intellective tasks – have an objectively correct answer
Ex/ exam question
Decision-making tasks – no objectively correct answer, group decides what they think is correct
Ex/ jury decisions
conceptual

14. McGrath’s Group Task Circumplex Model
conflict
Quadrant III. Negotiate
Group has to resolve conflict stemming from within
Task types differentiated by source of conflict:
Cognitive conflict tasks – must resolve differences in viewpoint
Ex/ Team members interpret data differently, so can’t agree on what recommendation to give to policy makers
Mixed motive tasks – must resolve conflicts of interest
Ex/ Social dilemma games in which one’s self-interest is at odds with the group’s interest

15. McGrath’s Group Task Circumplex Model
Quadrant IV. Execute
Usually requires physical action
Tasks differentiated by competition against an adversary (or not)
Contests / battles / competitive tasks – performed against an opponent (win/lose)
Ex/ basketball game, military battle
Performances / psycho-motor tasks – striving to meet a standard of excellence
Ex/ construction crew completes building project on time, to code, and within budget
behavioral

16. McGrath’s Group Task Circumplex Model
Model Strengths
Model Weaknesses
Comprehensive, conceptual typology
Possible overlapping task types / ambiguous classification (esp task types 4, 5, & 6)
Appealingly simple structure / symmetry
Clusters task together that have been shown to have different characteristics important to group outcomes
(e.g., All tasks w/ an objectively correct answer are categorized as Type 3, though they vary in demonstrability)

17. Steiner’s Group Task Typology
(1) Divisible vs. Unitary Tasks
Divisible tasks can be separated into distinct parts that require different skills/abilities
Subtask-person assignment is critical
Subtasks may be completed fairly independently by group members, requiring minimal group processes
Although there may some subtask interdependence (e.g., sequential)
Unitary tasks cannot be meaningfully separated into distinct activities
Process requires all members engage in the same activity, applying the same skills/abilities
Likely to require more complex group behaviors and processes
Steiner, 1966/1972

18. Steiner’s Group Task Typology
(2) Maximizing vs. Optimizing Tasks
Differences in the nature of the task goals
Maximizing tasks: where the goal is to perform as much or as quickly as possible
E.g., come up with as many items/solutions as possible
Can be unitary or divisible
Optimizing tasks: where the goal is the production of a specific, desirable product
E.g., come up with one, best solution
Steiner, 1966/1972

19. Steiner’s Group Task Typology
(3) Permitted Group Processes
Differences in the combinatorial processes permitted in unitary tasks: the ways that members efforts are combined to solve the task
Additive tasks: group product is the sum of all members’ efforts, where contributions are weighted equally
E.g.: total # of ideas generated by the group
Conjunctive tasks: require all group members to contribute identically, member contributions are constrained to be equal
E.g., weakest link determines group performance
Disjunctive tasks: permit just one member’s contributions to determine the group product, where an individual product is sanctioned by the group
E.g., many problem solving tasks
Discretionary tasks: no restraints on how member contributions are combined, up to the group
E.g., optimizing tasks, like forecasting a future event

20. Steiner’s Group Task Typology
Value of the model…
Useful for identifying group processes that contribute to group task performance, and why performance may differ across task types
Different potential for group abilities, effectiveness, interactions/ behaviors to impact task outcome
Tasks may constrain the contribution of group members
Tasks provide different opportunities for group processes and emergent gains/losses in performance
Insight into individual vs. group performance
why groups perform at the level of their average member vs. best member vs. better than their best member
Steiner, 1966/1972

21. Summary of Task Typologies and Domains
Various approaches for identifying important task domains
Mainly conceptual
Few data-driven approaches
Overall reflect different opportunities/ constraints for group member abilities and group interaction/behavior to impact group performance

22. Collective Intelligence
Using tasks from all quadrants of the McGrath Task Circumplex, Woolley et al. (2010) found evidence for a general collective intelligence factor c:
positive correlation among scores on different tasks (r = .28)
initial factor accounting for > 43% of the variance
c more strongly related to performance on complex (criterion) tasks than group performance on simpler/pure tasks
Understanding underlying latent variable that explains consistency on performance across task types
Rather than factors that explain differences on task dimensions/domains
Woolley, 2010; Malone

23. Collective Performance Differences
Ideally, our models of group performance can
predict performance consistencies (e.g., ‘collective intelligence’)
and provide parsimonious and useful explanations of performance variability due to task types
50% of variance may be explained by task types (Larson, 2010)
Task typologies: useful framework for developing models that identify group factors and processes that explain predictable performance variability

24. Overall Summary
The extent to which different factors - group member characteristics, group characteristics, emergent group processes/behaviors –contribute to and impact performance is, to some extent, dependent on the requirements of the task
And so we need to understand key similarities and differences in task types: task typologies are a useful framework
Assessing group performance
On isolated “pure” task domains
valuable for understanding factors that impact specific task domains
but maybe not generalizable
Using batteries of varied tasks (or complex multi-domain tasks)
valuable for understanding factors that predict performance stability and variability, and identifying underlying processes
maybe loose some specificity
computing ‘c’ , a latent ‘collective intelligence’ factor, may have incremental predictive validity (worth exploring further…)