Free riding in groups puts an undue burden on some members, and the role of the leader and the moral obligations of the group are important to address this. Altruistic cooperation contributes to group survival and efficiency, which leads to social benefits.
The most problematic aspect of group work is free riding. Similar to taking a ride in a car without paying, the amount of responsibility and work that should be equally distributed is skewed so that some members of the group do more work than others. Like the popular Sprite commercials, there is a sad reality of a college senior who boldly asks for a free ride by saying, “Hey, junior, I’m a little busy, please leave me out!”
There are many causes of free rides. There are three main reasons. There are three main reasons for free rides: the first is that you don’t do your part, so someone else does it for you, the second is that the work is not clearly distributed and roles are unclear, and the third is that you are forced to do it due to your own personal circumstances. These problems don’t just appear in group work, but can extend to larger social issues.
So how can we stop free riding? Ideally, the best way to stop free riding is for each member to voluntarily do the work assigned to them. However, this is nearly impossible. Groups are most efficient when a leader is elected from among the members, and the group is led by the leader with some coercion. The role of the leader is important to ensure that everyone is working fairly, and the leader must be objective and able to make judgments about the right choices. But the most important quality of a group leader is the ability to give appropriate praise and criticism.
Much like Ken Blanchard’s famous book, “Praise Makes the Whale Dance,” praise can be an important motivator to move an organization forward. If done well, it can motivate and inspire people to reach their full potential. The same goes for criticism. If someone isn’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing, or isn’t doing it right, you need to let them know that they’re doing it wrong. If they’re doing what they’re supposed to do, reward them with praise to motivate them to do better next time, and if they’re doing more harm than good, let them know through criticism.
Appropriate criticism can help boost morale by letting them know that it’s embarrassing to be selfish in front of a large group of people, and generous applause for a job well done. It’s about giving people a sense of conscience. It’s much more beneficial for humans to be selfish in the short term. But in the long run, it’s much more beneficial for humans to live rightly and selflessly. However, humans can be driven to act selfishly by short-term gains. To prevent this from happening, appealing to the conscience of your teammates is more effective than other methods when assigning tasks to them. If you remind them of their moral obligations, they’re more likely to comply with your request because they’re social animals.
If we look beyond the level of participation in group activities, we can explore the macro-level issue of why we should live right. Another way to look at group activities is that you don’t have to be the one to organize them. It’s not like I’m going to see these people again, and if I don’t do my part, someone else will. So why should we live right? Does living right mean living altruistically? We live our lives in pursuit of our own version of righteousness. For some people, living right may be selfish. However, living rightly means living in a way that doesn’t harm others, that benefits everyone, and that benefits yourself. This is because living for others, not just ourselves, makes us more viable collectively and in the long run.
The book “The Emergence of Altruism” argues that it is much more beneficial to work together because of the group selection hypothesis. The group selection hypothesis applies the concept of natural selection not only to individuals, but also to groups. In order for a behavioral trait to be passed on to the next generation, it must be more adapted to the environment than other traits. However, if this trait, when viewed collectively, brings benefits and advantages to the group as a whole, it is argued that a group with more individuals who possess this trait will naturally be more successful and have an advantage in survival.
Based on the group selection hypothesis, altruistic behavior is much more beneficial to the survival of the group. Even if all but one individual in a group is selfish, the presence of a single altruistic individual will increase the group’s survival rate. This means that being altruistic is more likely to increase the survival of the group than being selfish. Also, the opposite of altruistic behavior, selfish behavior, is only temporarily beneficial. It’s easy to live in a selfish world. However, the “me first” mentality is never a good option in the long run. Selfish individuals are much more likely to be rejected later on when they ask others for help. Individuals who cooperate selflessly have “insurance” that they will be helped in the future if they need it because they helped others.
Finally, we can increase the competitiveness of society by living right. Living for the good of others has much greater long-term benefits. When altruistic individuals are present in a group, the group is more likely to survive. According to “The Emergence of Altruism,” “Individual selection ‘favors’ altruistic individuals, but group selection ‘favors’ groups with fewer altruistic individuals.” Furthermore, if an individual has a successful strategy, there is cultural transmission, where others in the group learn the strategy. Therefore, if it is known that being altruistic is slightly more beneficial in a particular environment, people will form groups that cooperate with each other.
The group selection hypothesis is an important hypothesis that explains the evolution of altruistic behavior in our society. We have reasons to live right in society, not just in groups. By doing right, we can increase the survivability of not only ourselves, but also the group, and more broadly, our society. On an individual level, those who live altruistically may have fewer advantages than those who live selfishly. However, in the case of a group, having a single individual who is able to sacrifice himself or herself can be crucial to the survival and cohesion of the group. In this way, the group selection hypothesis gives us an important reason to live a little more righteously. Humans increase their chances of survival by living altruistically.
As such, the problem of free-riding in group tasks is not simply a matter of seeking personal gain, but requires us to act in accordance with our moral obligations and the survival of the group. It’s important to remember that doing the right thing is not only for your own benefit, but also for the benefit of the group as a whole.
