In corporate training, transformation equates to return on investment. Organisations invest significant resources in upskilling teams, seeking tangible returns in productivity, innovation, and engagement. But what if one of the biggest hindrances to this transformation isn’t the content or the facilitator, but the group size itself? 

This raises a critical question, often overlooked in the pursuit of immediate cost savings and speed: what is the true cost of prioritising reach over resonance? The answer lies in two powerful psychological phenomena that can dramatically undermine your training efforts.

How the Ringelmann Effect Sinks Corporate Training

Enter the Ringelmann effect, a century-old psychological principle that has profound implications for the efficacy of your training programs.

First identified by French agricultural engineer Maximilien Ringelmann in the early 20th century, the Ringelmann effect describes the tendency for individual members of a group to become increasingly less productive as the size of their group increases. The classic illustration of this is a simple game of tug-of-war. Ringelmann found that when he asked individuals to pull on a rope, they exerted a certain amount of force. However, when he grouped them, the total force was significantly less than the sum of their individual efforts. The more people he added, the greater the discrepancy.

So, what causes this decline in individual effort? It boils down to two key factors: a loss of motivation and a diffusion of responsibility. In a large group, individuals may feel their personal contribution is less noticeable or important. The sense of individual accountability diminishes, leading to a phenomenon often referred to in the corporate world as “social loafing.”

From Tug-of-War to the Training Room: The Impact on Efficacy

Now, let’s transport this concept from a rope-pulling experiment to your next corporate training session. Imagine a large training group of 20 or 30 participants. The Ringelmann effect can manifest in several ways that directly undermine the program’s goals:

• Reduced Participation and Engagement: In a large group, it’s easier for participants to fade into the background. The pressure to contribute, ask questions, and engage in discussions is significantly lower. Introverted individuals may find it particularly challenging to make their voices heard, stifling diverse perspectives.
• Decreased Individual Accountability: When the group is large, it becomes more difficult for facilitators to gauge individual understanding and progress. Participants may be less inclined to complete pre-work or actively participate in exercises, assuming others will carry the load.
• Superficial Learning: Transformative learning requires deep engagement, critical thinking, and the ability to grapple with new concepts. In a large group setting, the dynamic often shifts towards passive listening rather than active learning. The opportunity for personalized feedback and in-depth discussion, crucial for embedding new skills and knowledge, is severely limited.
• Lack of Psychological Safety: Smaller groups tend to foster a greater sense of trust and psychological safety. This is the bedrock of a successful training environment, where individuals feel comfortable sharing challenges, admitting they don’t understand something, and stepping outside their comfort zones. In a larger, more anonymous setting, this vital element is often absent.

The Echo Chamber: When Group IQ Plummets

But a lack of individual effort is only half the story. As a group grows, it not only faces a deficit in effort but also a potential decline in its overall intelligence. This might seem counterintuitive. Surely, more minds mean more brainpower? Not necessarily.

Research into “collective intelligence” (CI), or the “group IQ,” reveals a more complex picture. Pioneering work by researchers like Anita Woolley from Carnegie Mellon University has shown that a group’s CI is not determined by the average or maximum individual IQ of its members. Instead, it’s driven by factors like social sensitivity, the evenness of conversational turn-taking, and the diversity of perspectives.

In large groups, these pillars of collective intelligence begin to crumble:

• Communication Breakdown: The opportunity for every member to contribute meaningfully diminishes rapidly as group size increases. A few dominant voices can easily monopolize the conversation, leading to an echo chamber where a narrow range of ideas is reinforced.
• Groupthink Takes Hold: Larger groups are more susceptible to “groupthink,” a phenomenon where the desire for harmony or conformity results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. Critical thinking is suppressed, and potentially brilliant, dissenting opinions are never voiced for fear of disrupting the consensus.
• A Curvilinear Catastrophe: Studies have shown that the relationship between group size and collective intelligence can be curvilinear (an inverted ‘U’ shape). This means that adding more people to a group can boost its collective intelligence, but only up to a certain point. Beyond this optimal size, the logistical and social complexities of managing the group lead to a sharp decline in its overall problem-solving and decision-making capabilities.

The Double Blow to Training Efficacy

When you combine the Ringelmann effect with the erosion of collective intelligence, the impact on your training program’s efficacy is devastating. You have a room full of individuals who are not fully engaged (social loafing) and a group dynamic that stifles innovation and critical thinking (low CI). The result is a training session that is, at best, a superficial overview and, at worst, a complete waste of time and resources.

The Power of Small: The Strategic Advantage of Intimate Learning

The solution to this dual threat is clear: opt for training providers like The Skills Clinic and courses that champion small group learning. By consciously curating a more intimate and focused learning environment, you directly counter the negative forces at play in larger sessions.

Here’s why your business should make this strategic shift:

• Heightened Accountability: In a small group, there’s nowhere to hide. Individuals are more likely to feel a sense of personal responsibility for their learning and to actively participate.
• Enhanced Psychological Safety: Smaller groups foster trust and psychological safety, creating a space where participants feel comfortable asking questions, admitting they don’t know something, and challenging their own assumptions.
• Rich, Diverse Dialogue: With fewer participants, there is more airtime for everyone. This allows for a more even distribution of contributions, ensuring that a wider range of perspectives and ideas are heard and considered, thereby boosting the group’s collective intelligence.
• Deep, Applied Learning: Transformative learning happens through doing, not just listening. Small groups are the ideal setting for hands-on exercises, in-depth discussions, and personalized feedback from facilitators.

The temptation to train large groups for the sake of efficiency is a false economy. For organisations serious about investing in their people and driving meaningful change, the choice is clear: prioritise quality over quantity and seek out training providers that are committed to results, not just numbers. An intimate setting with a high facilitator-to-participant ratio is the most powerful catalyst for genuine transformation.

Speak to us at The Skills Clinic about our tailored solutions and commitment to transformative training results.

Citations:

• Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 936–941.
• 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.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688.
• Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 76–89.