Messenger - Vol. 1, No. 2, Page 30 Winter 1992 Just stringing along Quiet leaders who recognize the inherent problems of their work groups but do not seek to resolve them guide the most successful enterprises, according to a new study co-authored by a University professor. "The Dynamics of Intense Work Groups: A Study of British String Quartets" uses the musical ensemble as model of an intense work group. As defined by Donald Conlon, professor of business administration, intense work groups face an immediate and pressure-filled task, wherein group members are interdependent for success. Conlon worked with University of Illinois professor Keith Murnighan on the study, which examined 20 string quartets based in England in 1981. String quartets, which consist of two violinists, one cellist and one violist, are particularly intense, since they use "each other's outputs as their own inputs, and vice versa," according to the study. The results of the study appear in the Administrative Science Quarterly. Through a series of semi-structured interviews, the researchers gained information about how string quartet members felt about their roles in the group, the importance of others' roles, what makes a quartet successful, and ideal versus practical ways of resolving disputes. In addition to interviews, some concert reviews and limited observation were used. In the study, success was measured by several factors, including the number of concerts each group performed in a one-year period, the group's concert fee and the number of albums recorded and in print. The measures of success were used to categorize the quartets into "less successful" and "more successful" groups. The results, according to Conlon, show the more successful groups are those that understand their problems and do not try to resolve them. Conlon says the study revealed three problems, called paradoxes, in string quartets. These paradoxes are inherent and unresolvable problems, which all groups must "accept, confront and manage." The first paradox, leadership versus democracy, occurs because quartet music usually gives the lead to the first violinist. Yet, many musicians join quartets to have a voice in how they play, a decision-making process that they could not enjoy in an orchestra. Conlon says the first violinist in good groups gave "lip-service to democracy" by asking the rest of the quartet how pieces should be played, while exerting the most influence in how the music was actually presented. In responding to questions about who leads the group, second violinists, cellists and violists often said that the leader is whoever is playing "the top," or the tune, in a piece of music. "But 90 percent of the time, the first violin is playing the top, so they're just avoiding saying, 'The first violin is the leader,' " Conlon says. The other members of less-successful groups often complained that their leader was not taking enough control of the group. According to the study, less successful groups wanted their leader to be more forceful. "The first violin in the (less-successful) groups tended to emphasize democracy and avoided acknowledging the group's strong task demands," the study says. Murnighan says quiet leaders were more effective in the quartets than those who "grabbed power and made a show of it." He concludes that, "Leaders are typically necessary in groups, but the less obvious they are in practice, the more effective they are." The second paradox, the paradox of the second fiddle, involves the difficult role of the second violinist. According to Conlon, second violinists must have consummate musical ability, yet be willing to work in the shadow of the first violinist, who invariably represents the quartet in public, and for whom groups are often named. According to the study, "First violinists were in the forefront in concert, at social gatherings and during discussions of musical interpretations. "Second violinists in successful quartets were either content or resigned to their positions," the study concludes. One cited in the study said, "I'm naturally a second fiddle. I think it's a basic, pyschological difference." The third paradox is whether to resolve group conflict through confrontation or compromise. Conlon says the better groups spent more time playing and less time talking about how they would play. The more successful groups played through their conflicts, shelving arguments until another day that often never arrived, he says. "Successful string quartets did not resolve the contradictions in these paradoxes," the researchers concluded. "Instead, they recognized and tolerated them, and handled them quietly, rarely raising paradoxical issues for discussion." Backgrounds of the quartet players also were explored, and a similarity in the musical and personal history of players was found to be the norm in good groups. "Success seems to be corollated with a similarity of background," Conlon says. "While there's a lot of talk these days about diversity, there seems to be a benefit to coming from the same schools and in being taught by the same instructors." In generalizing their findings, Conlon and Murnighan liken string quartets to surgical teams and research and development groups, but stress that quartets differ from every other work group in their interdependency. "Other groups may not face a leader-democracy paradox; legitimate authority may clarify formal power differences. Nevertheless, the desire for democracy is not unusual, and its contradiction within a group is typical. Similarly, the paradox of the second fiddle, while not being played out to such an extreme, is an analog for people who feel that their talents are under-appreciated. And finally, as noted, conflict and diversity are ubiquitous, inherent group phenomena." -Stephen Steenkamer, Delaware '92