The lecturer talks about research conducted by afirm that used the group system to handle theirwork. He says that the theory stated in the passagewas very different and somewhat inaccurate whencompared to what happened in reality.
First, some members got free rides. That is, somedidn’t work hard but got recognition for the successnontheless. This also indicates that people whoworked hard were not given recognition they shouldhave gotten. In other words, they weren’t given theopportunity to “shine”. This directly contradictswhat the passage indicates.
Second, groups were slow in progress. The passage says that groups are more responsivethan individuals because of the number of people involved and their aggregated resources.However, the speaker talks about how the firm found out that groups were slower thanindividuals in decision making. Groups needed more time for meetings, which are necessaryprocedures in decision making. This was another place where experience contradicted theory.
Third, influential people might emerge and lead the group towards glory or failure. If theinfluent people are going in the right direction there would be no problem. But in cases wherethey go in the wrong direction, there is nobody that has enough influence to counter thedecision made. In other words, the group might turn into a dictatorship, with the influentialparty as the leader, and might become less flexible in its thinking. They might becomeone-sided, and thus fail to succeed.