The Kibbutz Movement and the Team Principle of Effort
The same standard of living for everyone, no matter how much a person works: in theory, that ought to ruin effort. In the kibbutz it worked for decades – and later, in many places, it stopped working. Not a counterexample, but a nuanced case illustrating the Team Principle of Effort: where individual contributions disappear into the group, effort declines.
Many dots push a bar; some fade into the crowd and stop pushing. When each dot gets its own glowing trail, they all push, and the bar speeds up.
Team principle #16
Team Principle of Effort: Where individual contributions disappear into the group, effort declines.
4 min read4 sectionsSituationConnection to the principle
Contents
In 1910, twelve young people found a settlement on the Sea of Galilee in which everything belongs to everyone. It is called Degania and is regarded as the first kibbutz. One of its founders is Yosef Baratz. The rules are radical: common ownership, the same standard of living regardless of work, a communal dining hall, children’s houses. The one settlement grows into a movement that at its height numbers some 129,000 people. For the Team Principle of Effort, it is a test case. The principle states: where individual contributions disappear into the group, effort declines. On a kibbutz, everyone receives the same – so why did it hold together for so long?
A circle of twelve equal shares around a gold center; the dots around it are of different sizes, and a large one moves away – as on the kibbutz.
01
Equal Pay for All
Situation
Around 1950, some 65,000 people live on kibbutzim, about 7.5% of Israel’s population. Their influence exceeds their numbers: in the 1960s, kibbutz members make up about 4% of Israelis but around 15% of the members of the Knesset. The economist Ran Abramitzky of Stanford University has studied how such a system could survive. His book on the subject appeared in 2018. He identifies three incentive problems: free riding, the departure of the most able, and the influx of less productive members.
Connection to the team principle
On paper, the kibbutz is exactly the case the principle warns against. What you get does not depend on what you do. Whoever does less eats in the same dining hall. If the core statement were a law of nature, no kibbutz would have survived its first few years.
02
Why It Worked Anyway
Situation
Ran Abramitzky describes the countermeasures. The communities are small enough for everyone to know one another – about 440 members on average. There is little privacy. Work is easy to observe, for instance during the orange or cotton harvest. In the dining hall, everyone meets everyone, and anyone who shirks is made to feel it. Add to that a strong shared conviction. The result contradicts the simple expectation: according to Abramitzky, kibbutz members worked longer hours than non-members, and sociological studies found high work motivation.
Connection to the team principle
Pay was equal, but contributions did not disappear. Everyone could see who was out in the field and who was not. And the group meant a great deal to its members. That matches the research: the meta-analysis by Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams (1993) describes social loafing – the drop in effort in groups – as a moderate effect that shrinks when contributions are identifiable and the group is valued. For decades, the kibbutz met both conditions – at a price. Little privacy and social pressure are no small matter.
03
Who Leaves, Who Joins
Situation
There are two problems that visibility does not solve. Highly qualified members leave the kibbutz at above-average rates, and common ownership acts as a barrier to exit, because those who leave take little with them. Conversely, people who previously earned less are more likely to join. The kibbutzim respond with admission screening and a probationary period.
Connection to the team principle
This reveals a second side of the principle. Someone who contributes a great deal and realizes it makes no difference to them does not necessarily slack off. Sometimes they leave. For a team, that is the costlier outcome: effort doesn’t decline gradually; the top performers disappear altogether.
04
The Shift to Performance Pay
Situation
In the mid-1980s, many kibbutzim fall into a debt crisis. From the late 1990s onward, many of them introduce differentiated wages; this becomes known as the “renewed kibbutz.” According to a University of Haifa survey, by the 2010s, 188 of 262 kibbutzim had switched to this model, about 72%. Wealthier and more ideologically committed kibbutzim held on to equality longer. The movement has not disappeared: around 2010 there were some 270 kibbutzim with about 126,000 residents.
Connection to the team principle
The shift had several causes, chiefly financial ones. It is no proof that equal distribution is bound to fail. But the pattern fits: where prosperity and conviction remained strong, equality held. Where both waned, free riding and departures came to the fore. Equality holds as long as other forces keep each individual’s contribution visible and meaningful.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
01
Equal pay is not the problem. Ask instead: Does everyone in your team see what the others contribute?
02
Keep units small enough that people see one another at work. In large, anonymous departments, the individual disappears faster.
03
Nurture what the team means to its members. Shared conviction is a real counterforce, not an extra.
04
Keep an eye on your strongest people. If their contribution makes no difference, you may only find out when they hand in their notice.
05
Weigh the cost of control. Visibility through constant observation works, but it costs freedom.
Summary
For almost a century, the kibbutz tested what happens when everyone gets the same. The answer is not simple. As long as the community was small, everyone saw everyone else and the cause meant a great deal to its members, effort stayed high. Where those conditions faded, the most able left, and many kibbutzim introduced performance-based pay. The Team Principle of Effort explains both: effort declines where individual contributions disappear into the group – and it holds where they are visible and count.
