#110 - The Horsepower of Your Team

How much better is a group of people than the same individuals working alone?

It’s tempting to assume that the collective output should be equal to — or greater than — the sum of individual contributions. We speak often of synergies, the creative energy of collaboration, and the motivational force of belonging to a group.

But is this extraordinary group performance actually achievable? Or is it more elusive than we think?

Ringelmann Experiment

Maximilian Ringelmann, a French engineer, studied the performance of horses in 1913 and found that the force of two animals pulling a carriage is not equal to twice the force of a single horse. He continued his research on humans choosing rope pulling as an activity, known officially as a tug-of-war, which at the time was a very popular Olympic sport (1900-1920). 

He asked several men to pull a rope and measured the force exerted by each individual. He found that, on average, when two people pulled together, each used only 93% of their individual strength; when three pulled together, this fell to 85%, and when eight people pulled together, to just 49% [1]. 8 people was the size of the olympic  tug-of-war team. Imagine how crucial this finding could have been for competitive teams.

Team performance didn’t scale linearly. In fact, it deteriorated. The key question became not just how strong the individuals were — but more importantly, how to raise the collective output. How can we move the group’s performance upward — from 49% to... what?

Social Loafing

This decline in individual effort became known as social loafing, and was later studied in more complex and varied settings.

Ringelmann’s experiment was simple and mechanical, but it revealed something enduring: adding people rarely solves performance problems by itself. Without attention to group dynamics, teams risk losing both motivation and effectiveness.

Research in the 1970s and 1980s [2] separated the causes of this loss into two broad categories: coordination problems — when people get in each other’s way — and motivational loss — when people try less. The two often reinforce one another.

Even highly motivated individuals can produce disappointing results if the work is poorly coordinated. Conversely, when coordination breaks down, people begin to question the point of their effort — and motivation drops.

Social loafing tends to decrease when individual contributions are visible, people identify strongly with the group and the task feels important and meaningful.

Interestingly, research also shows that social loafing tends to be less of an issue in collectivist cultures, where people more strongly identify with group goals and social harmony is prioritised over individual autonomy [2a]. This suggests that cultural context — not just team structure — shapes how we contribute in groups.

The classic levers of motivation are also deeply connected to coordination.

In well-coordinated teams, people don’t block one another; responsibilities are clear; the purpose is shared. This clarity reinforces a sense of meaning and energises motivation. When coordination falters, motivation often follows.

These are classic levers of motivation. But they are also deeply connected to coordination. In a well coordinated effort we don't get in each other's way and we feel that our tasks make sense, we are part of well functioning team and our motivation grows. And the other way around, poor coordination poses a question on the sense of our work and deteriorates motivation.

The Flow of Perfect Teams

In rare moments of high coordination and shared purpose, a team can enter what psychologists call flow. The experience is seamless, collaborative, energising — and often, hard to replicate.

Phil Jackson, probably the most successful basketball coach of all time, actively cultivated this state in his teams [3]. He described it as the ultimate sign of success: watching players move and respond as if they were one organism — not a collection of individuals, but a synchronised whole.

Perhaps in these moments, the team comes close to 100% — or even surpasses the sum of its parts.

Of course, elite sports teams operate in unique conditions: intense focus, shared stakes, and high interdependence. But the aspiration to reach that state — through humility, clear roles, mutual respect, and shared rhythm — is universal.

And perhaps this is where leadership matters most. Not in commanding effort, but in designing the conditions that allow coordination, meaning, and motivation to align.

I publish one short reflection like this each week. If you would like to receive them by email, you can sign up to the newsletter here

References and Notes

1. Dobelli, R. (2013). The art of thinking clearly. Harper.

2. Some references on social loafing research

   1. Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393567

   2. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

   3. Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822

3. Jackson, P., & Delehanty, H. (2013). Eleven rings: The soul of success. Penguin Press.