Why the four-eyes principle is not always a good idea …
The four-eyes principle is the principle that states that for certain tasks and/or actions, at least two or more people are always needed, so that they can check each other. This is to prevent fraud or increased risks. At first sight, a ‘fit for all’ concept, or is it not?
In 1913, the French engineer Maximilian Ringelmann studied how horses perform. He came to the conclusion that the performance of two draught animals was not twice as high as the performance of a single horse. Surprised by the result, he extended his research to humans. He found that men only invested 85 percent of their individual pulling power in tug-of-war with three and only 49 percent with eight.
In the field of behavioural sciences, this phenomenon is called “social loafing”. The phenomenon occurs when the individual performance is not immediately visible. In fact, social loafing is a form of unconscious cheating that we are all guilty of.
It is also remarkable that the individual performance never quite drops to zero. So why not drop to zero altogether? Well, because a zero performance might get noticed; with all its consequences, such as social exclusion or a bad reputation. People simply have a perfect nose for the level at which their non-performance can be noticed.
Social loafing does not only occur in physical performance. The principle applies fully to mental performance. The larger the group or team, the smaller the individual contribution. The larger the group or team, the smaller the individual contribution. Until the performance of the group reaches a lower limit, at which point the performance does not drop any further.
Social loafing has other curious effects. In groups, we hold back, even when it comes to our responsibility. This is called ‘diffusion of responsibility’.
If you ever find yourself in the water and need to be rescued, hope that there are not twenty people standing on the quay watching. The chance of being rescued is many times smaller than when one random walker passes by…
But responsibility is not the only thing that is shrugged off. For the same reason, groups also take greater risks than individuals; the so-called ‘risky shift’. People simply behave differently in a group than they do on their own. These disadvantages can be reduced by making individual performance as visible as possible.
Willy Wastyn – Scientific advisor for StepStones for Safety®
Safety partners with content.
READ MORE
Sense and nonsense about safety behaviour and accidents at work
Training as a prevention advisor no longer suffices
'Die hard' security ambassadors
A sustainable safety culture is everyone's business.
Working on your safety culture, how do you get started?
A world-class safety culture: sounds good, but is it realistic?