Researchers at Caltech have found that while compromise drives shared risky decisions, biased blame and credit can destroy teamwork [1].
This discovery highlights a critical tension in human cooperation. Understanding why teams fail after a risky outcome can help organizations improve decision-making processes and maintain stability when working with unfamiliar partners.
Dean Mobbs and members of his lab led the study to explore the impact of compromise and biased attribution on teamwork [1]. The research focuses specifically on the dynamics that occur when individuals must reach an agreement despite differing levels of risk tolerance.
Mobbs questioned the psychological effects of collaborating with strangers under pressure. "But what happens when we must work with others—especially people we don't know—to make a risky decision?" Mobbs said [1].
According to the study, compromise is a fundamental part of human relationships, appearing in everything from dinner choices to household chores [1]. However, the researchers found that when a shared risky decision leads to a negative outcome, the tendency to unfairly assign blame can break the team's cohesion [1].
Conversely, the study examined how credit is assigned when a risky decision succeeds. The researchers noted that biased attribution, where credit is not shared equitably, similarly threatens the longevity of the partnership [1]. This suggests that the emotional aftermath of a decision is often more influential than the decision itself.
By analyzing these patterns, the Caltech team aimed to uncover why certain groups collapse after a failure while others persevere. The findings suggest that the ability to compromise is only half of the equation; the other half is the fair distribution of accountability, and reward [1].
“Relationships are all about compromise.”
The study suggests that the technical ability to reach a consensus is insufficient for long-term cooperation. Because humans naturally lean toward biased attribution—blaming others for failures and taking credit for successes—the social stability of a team depends more on the perceived fairness of the aftermath than on the quality of the initial compromise.
