First, some members got free rides. That is, some didn’t work hard but got recognition for thesuccess nontheless. This also indicates that people who worked hard were not givenrecognition they should have gotten. In other words, they weren’t given the opportunity to“shine”. This directly contradicts what the passage indicates.

　　Second, groups were slow in progress. The passage says that groups are more responsivethan individuals because of the number of people involved and their aggregated resources.However, the speaker talks about how the firm found out that groups were slower thanindividuals in decision making. Groups needed more time for meetings, which are necessaryprocedures in decision making. This was another place where experience contradicted theory.

　　Third, influential people might emerge and lead the group towards glory or failure. If theinfluent people are going in the right direction there would be no problem. But in cases wherethey go in the wrong direction, there is nobody that has enough influence to counter thedecision made. In other words, the group might turn into a dictatorship, with the influentialparty as the leader, and might become less flexible in its thinking. They might become one-sided, and thus fail to succeed.