Click to playTap to play The video will start in 8Cancel Play now Get the biggest soaps stories by email Subscribe We will use your email address only for the purpose of sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights Thank you for subscribingWe have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Could not subscribe, try again laterInvalid Email The legendary cast of Dream Team will go down in TV history for many reasons. From ridiculous murder plots to team tragedies - the players, coaching staff and board of directors really did see it all. As we approach the 20 year anniversary since the series first aired on Sky One October 14 we thought it was time to take a look at who's been promoted in the careers and which stars have been relegated.
Four years previously, they were ranked st in the world. Yet they knocked out the Netherlands in the qualifiers, and then as the smallest nation ever to reach the championships, drew with Portugal and Hungary, and then took down Austria. But their biggest scalp was England, a team packed with star names.
So how did they do it — and what lessons can be learned from their unexpected success? And exactly the same dynamics that brought Iceland their victory, and England their defeat, can help us to understand why. Contrary to the notion of a lone genius, conversations and the exchange of ideas bring out the best in the team members; their combined brainpower allows them to see connections that had been invisible previously.
There are also plenty of notorious examples where team thinking fails, sometimes at great cost Yet there are also plenty of notorious examples where team thinking fails, sometimes at great cost. Inspired by the Bay of Pigs disaster in , he explored the reasons why the Kennedy administration decided to invade Cuba.
Instead, they reinforced their existing biases. Sceptics of collective reasoning may also point to the many times that groups simply fail to agree on any decision at all, reaching an impasse, or they may overly complicate a problem by incorporating all the points of view.
Designing the test was a Herculean task. Unlike an individual intelligence test, many of the tasks were practical in nature.
In a test of negotiation skills, for instance, the groups had to imagine that they were housemates sharing a car on a trip into town, each with a list of groceries — and they had to plan their trip to get the best bargains with the least driving time.
In a test of moral reasoning, meanwhile, the subjects played the role of a jury, describing how they would judge a basketball player who had bribed his instructor. And to test their overall execution, the team members were each sat in front of a separate computer and asked to enter words into a shared online document — a deceptively simple challenge that tested how well they could coordinate their activities.
The participants were also asked to perform some verbal or abstract reasoning tasks that might be included in a traditional IQ test — but they answered as a group, rather than individually.
Nor could it be strongly linked to the highest IQ within the group. They studied students completing a two-month group project in a university management course, for instance. Intriguingly, teams with a higher collective intelligence kept on building on their advantage during this project: not only were they better initially; they also improved the most over the eight weeks.
Behaviours that help The test is much more than a diagnostic tool, however.
It has also allowed Woolley to investigate the underlying reasons why some teams have higher or lower collective intelligence — and the ways those dynamics might be improved.
The most destructive dynamic, Woolley has found, is when team members start competing against each other.
By shutting down a conversation and preventing women from sharing their knowledge, those are exactly the kinds of behaviours that sabotage group performance. Woolley has shown that — at least in her experiments in the USA — teams with a greater proportion of women have a higher collective intelligence Sure enough, Woolley has shown that — at least in her experiments in the USA — teams with a greater proportion of women have a higher collective intelligence, and that this can be linked to their higher, overall, social sensitivity, compared to groups consisting of a larger proportion of men.
Does self-worth sabotage?
Various studies have found that inflated beliefs of your own competence and power can impair your abilities to cooperate within a team.
And this means that groups of high-flying individuals often fail to make good and creative decisions , despite their individual experience and talent. If the team as a whole agreed on their relative positions, they were more productive, since they avoided constant jockeying for authority.
We see exactly the same dynamics in many sports. The social psychologist Adam Galinsky, for instance, has examined the performance of football soccer teams in the World Cup in South Africa and the World Cup in Brazil.
England, in contrast, had pulled 21 of its 23 players from these super-rich teams, far above the optimum threshold. The first is in hiring: look for people with that social sensitivity rather than simply employing the person with the best individual performance.
For the group as a whole, it may turn out to be far more valuable — particularly if you already have lots of high-flying members. The second is to ensure that the leader displays the kinds of behaviours they expect within the team. Various studies have found that traits like humility can be contagious.
If the leader is willing to listen to others more constructively, rather than dominating the conversation, and admit his or her mistakes, the team as a whole can begin to nurture those dynamics that increase the overall collective intelligence.
If that guy works the hardest, who in the team can be lazy?