In 1913, French agricultural engineer Maximilien Ringelmann conducted a simple experiment: he asked people to pull on a rope, both alone and in groups, and measured their effort.
The task was straightforward. Pull as hard as you can. That’s it.
When pulling alone, participants gave it their all. But when Ringelmann added more people to the rope, something strange happened.
Individual effort decreased.
Not a little. A lot.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
Ringelmann’s findings were shocking:
- 1 person pulling alone: 100% effort
- 2 people pulling together: Each person exerted only 93% effort
- 3 people: 85% effort per person
- 8 people: Only 49% effort per person
Think about that. With eight people, each person pulled at less than half their individual capacity.
The group looked like they were working together. They weren’t slacking visibly. But the data revealed the truth: the more people pulling, the less each person actually pulled.
This wasn’t fatigue or coordination issues. Ringelmann controlled for that. It was something else entirely.
People were loafing.
What Is the Ringelmann Effect?
The Ringelmann Effect (also called social loafing) is the tendency for individual productivity to decrease as group size increases.
The more people involved in a task, the less each person contributes—even when they think they’re giving full effort.
It’s not conscious laziness. Most participants believed they were pulling hard. But subconsciously, they reduced effort when others were present.
Modern Examples
1. Group Projects in School
- “Someone else will handle it”
- One person does 80% of the work
- Others contribute minimally
- Everyone gets the same grade
2. Corporate Meetings
- 10 people invited, 2 people talk
- Others zone out, check phones
- Nobody feels responsible for action items
- Result: “This meeting could’ve been an email”
3. Open-Plan Offices
- Large teams, diffused accountability
- “Someone else will fix that bug”
- Productivity drops despite collaboration goals
- Individual focus time disappears
4. Online Communities
- Wikipedia: 1% create content, 9% edit, 90% lurk
- GitHub: Few active contributors, many watchers
- Slack: Most messages from a handful of people
Why It Happens
The Ringelmann Effect occurs because:
- Diffused Responsibility - “Someone else will handle it”
- Reduced Identifiability - Your individual contribution is invisible
- Coordination Loss - Larger groups = worse communication
- Motivation Loss - Reduced belief your effort matters
- Equity Concern - “If they’re not trying hard, why should I?”
The larger the group, the more each factor amplifies.
In Software Engineering
The tech industry is a playground for social loafing:
Oversized Teams
Problem: 10 engineers assigned to a project
Reality: 3 do the work, 7 attend meetings
Ringelmann: Effort per person plummets
Result: Adding engineers slowed delivery
Code Review Theater
Problem: 5 reviewers assigned to every PR
Reality: All assume someone else will review thoroughly
Ringelmann: Nobody catches the critical bug
Result: Rubber stamping, no real review
Shared Ownership = No Ownership
Problem: "Everyone owns the build system"
Reality: Nobody fixes flaky tests
Ringelmann: Responsibility is diffused
Result: Build stays broken for months
Too Many Cooks in Architecture
Problem: 8-person architecture committee
Reality: 2 people design, 6 people bikeshed
Ringelmann: Meetings drag on forever
Result: Paralysis by committee
Pair Programming Pitfalls
Problem: Mandatory pairing all day
Reality: One person drives, other zones out
Ringelmann: "Navigator" contributes less than they think
Result: Two developers at 60% efficiency = 120%, not 200%
How to Combat the Ringelmann Effect
1. Keep Teams Small
Amazon’s “Two-Pizza Rule”: If a team can’t be fed with two pizzas, it’s too large.
- ✅ 3-5 person teams
- ❌ 10+ person “collaboration”
2. Make Individual Contributions Visible
People work harder when their effort is identifiable.
Instead of: "The team fixed 50 bugs"
Try: "Alice fixed 15, Bob 12, Carol 10..."
3. Assign Clear Ownership
No shared responsibility. One person owns it.
- ✅ “Alice owns authentication”
- ❌ “The team owns authentication”
4. Limit Meeting Attendees
Required attendees only. Everyone else is optional or gets notes.
Before: 15 people in standups (10 zoned out)
After: 5 people in standups (all engaged)
5. Measure Individual Performance
Not for punishment, but for visibility.
Metrics that fight Ringelmann:
- Commits per person
- PRs reviewed thoroughly (not just approved)
- Features shipped
- Bugs fixed
6. Create Accountability Rituals
Each person reports what they personally did.
- Daily standups: “I did X, I will do Y”
- Sprint reviews: Individual demos
- Retrospectives: Personal commitments
The Counterintuitive Truth
More people ≠ more productivity.
In fact, adding people often decreases total output.
Brooks’s Law states: “Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.”
Why? Ringelmann Effect + coordination overhead.
You don’t just lose individual productivity. You lose it while also adding communication complexity.
The Deeper Lesson
Humans are social animals. We evolved to conserve energy in groups. If the tribe’s hunting, you don’t need to sprint—others will help bring down the mammoth.
This served us well for millennia. But in knowledge work, it’s a liability.
The Ringelmann Effect reveals that collaboration has a dark side. Sometimes the “team player” is the person working alone who gets shit done.
The Programmer’s Perspective
As engineers, we love to optimize. We profile code, reduce latency, eliminate bottlenecks.
But we rarely optimize team size.
We assume:
- More engineers = faster delivery
- More reviewers = better code quality
- More stakeholders = better decisions
Ringelmann proved otherwise over a century ago.
Next time you’re about to:
- Add another person to the project
- Invite 10 people to a meeting
- Create a “shared ownership” model
Ask yourself:
“Am I optimizing for collaboration theater, or for actual output?”
Because the rope doesn’t care how many people are pulling. It cares how hard each person pulls.
Key Takeaways
- ✅ Individual effort decreases as group size increases
- ✅ Diffused responsibility = no responsibility
- ✅ Make contributions visible and measurable
- ✅ Keep teams small and ownership clear
- ✅ More people often means less productivity
Ringelmann’s experiment was about rope pulling. But the principle applies everywhere humans work together.
The next time you’re in a meeting with 12 people and only 2 are contributing, remember: you’re not witnessing laziness.
You’re witnessing physics. Social physics.
The Ringelmann Effect isn’t a bug in human nature. It’s a feature. And until you design around it, your teams will keep pulling at 49% capacity.