It seems that gift-exchange and team production are closely linked.
Collaboration seems to make people much more generous towards each other than
when players are acting as individuals. This is indicated in the New York Times
article, “How to Get the Rich to Share the Marbles.” This distinction between
viewing yourself as a teammate or an individual in a group is very important in
my experience.
I remember what was my first-ever economics group project back in my
first year of college. None of my classmates knew each other, and the teams of
about eight or nine were separated at random. I remember that many of my
teammates were often missing from class and failed to make any sort of
impression on me. In our first meeting as a team, there were only about four of
us that attended, and we spent most of the time getting to know one another. In
particular, one of my teammates and I happened to sit next to each other in
class throughout the semester, so we got to know each other better and became
better at working together.
What this did was separated our team into four different kinds of “groups”
(1 or 2 people) which I’ll refer to as Groups A, B, C, and D, respectively:
there were those that never spoke or showed up to class, those that showed up
to class but didn’t participate much, those that showed up to class and stayed relatively
connected, and my classmate and I who corresponded on a daily basis.
By the time we presented our
project to the class, these four groups proved to have four distinct and
corresponding levels of productivity. Group A played no real part in the
assignment. Group B did bare-minimum work that didn’t mesh well with the
overall project. Group C had decent work and pulled their weight during the
presentation. Group A, my classmate and I, however, ended up contributing about
50-60% of the finished product.
The treatment of the four groups during grading were interesting: Group
A, which didn’t show up for presentations at all was singled out. They failed
while the rest of us got a grade boost; a fact that none of us argued against.
Group B surprisingly didn’t show up either, but the rest of us assured the
professor that they did, at very least, what they were supposed to (other than
showing up for presentations). Only half of Group B showed up. One of the two
were sick, but since he did good work and was sincere about why he couldn’t
attend, we insisted that they be given the same grade as those that presented. We
shared our grade with him despite having to do more work presenting on his
behalf. That leaves just three out eight or nine that actually presented.
The connection between teammates resulted in two things: the connected
were much more willing to work hard and were much more willing to defend each
other’s actions. The disconnected failed to impress and received no support
when it came to grading.
Now this doesn’t necessarily mean that collaboration made certain
people more productive. It could very well mean that
those who were too lazy to go to class were too lazy to give an effort on the
project. There’s just a few reasons that indicate that collaboration may have
been a factor. The teammate that I connected most with and I were the two most
productive members of the team by far. Also, as time went on, the team as a
whole became more and more productive after every time we met. Assuming we all
had the same level of motivation to do well, which was the to get a decent
grade, a possible reason for the difference in work was collaboration and team
productivity.