In this blog post, we’ll explore the meaning of living righteously and possible solutions by examining the free-rider problem that arises in group projects.
Many universities, including Seoul National University, frequently assign group projects as part of their coursework. A group project is an activity in which several people form a team to work together to solve a given problem or complete an assignment. It is commonly referred to as a “team project.” The most important aspect of such group projects is that team members share responsibilities fairly and evenly. If tasks are divided fairly in a way that everyone can accept, each group member will naturally develop a sense of responsibility, and the assignment can be completed more efficiently. This can be considered the goal of group projects and their most ideal form.
However, in reality, it is not easy to achieve such an ideal group project. So, what is the root cause of this conflict? One of the biggest causes is that roles are not distributed fairly due to free-riding by group members. While researching this article, I searched for “group projects” online and found some surprising results. Not only knowledge-sharing sites and blogs but also news articles were focusing heavily on the free-riding problem in group projects. I had expected to find content about the benefits of group projects or effective ways to conduct them, but most of the material dealt with how to solve the free-riding problem. This demonstrates that the free-riding problem in group projects is still recognized as a significant issue at many universities. I, too, experienced free-riding firsthand while working on numerous group projects after entering college, but I couldn’t easily come up with an effective solution. Therefore, I took this opportunity to reflect on ways to reduce free-riding and foster more productive group dynamics.
One approach worth considering is offering incentives. For example, this could involve awarding bonus points to the team leader or giving extra credit to those who propose good ideas. However, such methods are unlikely to be very effective if the criteria for incentives are unclear or if the need for rewards is not sufficiently recognized. Furthermore, if excessive competition arises in the pursuit of incentives, it could actually have the opposite effect of undermining teamwork, so this cannot be considered a foolproof solution.
The second approach is to grant the team leader a certain level of authority. For example, team members must cooperate with the team leader’s task assignments and instructions, and the team leader can factor their failure to perform assigned roles—unless there are special circumstances—into their evaluations. If the team leader allocates roles and manages the team according to fair standards, this can be a highly effective method. However, if authority is overly concentrated in the team leader, it may provoke resistance from team members, which could lead to conflict and division within the team. Furthermore, if authority is exercised improperly, issues such as unfair evaluations or the inappropriate exercise of influence cannot be ruled out.
A third approach to consider is peer evaluation, in which team members assess each other’s level of participation. While conducting group activities as usual, group members observe each other’s contributions and, after the activity concludes, evaluate them, with the results factored into their grades to a certain extent. In fact, a general education course I took utilized this peer evaluation as a key assessment component. As a result, I was motivated to participate more actively in group activities. Of course, this method also has several drawbacks. The biggest issue is that the process of evaluating one another can be highly subjective. Since personal thoughts and emotions may come into play, it can be difficult to achieve an objective evaluation, and ensuring complete fairness is also challenging. Furthermore, even if clear evaluation criteria are established, there are limitations to assessing the diverse collaborative processes between individuals using a single, uniform standard. Nevertheless, I believe this is a meaningful approach because the very fact that students evaluate one another is sufficient to provide strong motivation to participate actively in group activities.
A fourth method to consider is participating in group activities online. Specifically, this involves using video conferencing software or voice-based online meeting systems to discuss group assignments together. This approach allows for tracking when and to what extent each group member participated, and since participation time and activity details can be partially recorded, it can help reduce free-riding to some extent. Furthermore, using these activity records as a basis for grading would help enhance the objectivity of the evaluation. It also offers the advantage of making it easy to store and manage discussion content and activity logs. Of course, there is a drawback in that it may lack some of the immediacy compared to in-person activities; however, I believe this can be sufficiently offset if cooperation and communication among group members proceed smoothly.
Among these various methods, what is the most effective way to prevent free-riding? I believe the peer evaluation method, presented as the third option, is the most realistic alternative. As mentioned earlier, a major advantage is that it motivates students to make their own efforts to receive a good evaluation. Furthermore, the fourth method—online participation—can also be expected to have a positive effect, as the activity process is recorded and the extent of one’s participation is naturally revealed.
So, how does free-riding affect others and oneself? At the moment of free-riding, it may seem as though the individual is reaping benefits with minimal effort, but this places a correspondingly greater burden on the other group members. However, as time passes and evaluation systems such as peer evaluation are implemented, the free-rider is highly likely to experience negative consequences, such as receiving a low evaluation or being penalized in their grades.
Therefore, we need to reflect on why we should live righteously based on these examples. First, what does it mean to live righteously? Who sets the standard for what is “right,” and is a righteous life defined as a single, definitive answer? The first concept to consider is a moral life. Most of us have naturally heard since childhood that people should live morally and that this constitutes a “right” life. As normal members of society, we empathize with these values and strive to put them into practice. Among these virtues, honesty is particularly important. For example, even today, whenever corruption scandals involving public officials or social leaders occur, it is common to see many citizens expressing criticism and disappointment. Anyone would likely judge such behavior as wrong.
Second, living a happy life can be considered the right way to live. Everyone wants to live in pursuit of happiness, and some even regard happiness itself as the most important goal in life. However, living a happy life is by no means easy. People go about their lives engaging in various activities, such as faithfully performing their duties, taking time for themselves, and maintaining good relationships with those around them, including family and friends. If one can feel happiness within this process, then that, too, can be described as the right way to live.
So far, we have examined what it means to live a good life from two perspectives: one is a moral life, and the other is a happy life. Since everyone has different values and ways of thinking, it is difficult to assert that only one of these is absolutely correct. However, the two perspectives we have examined share a common thread: a life that does not harm others.
Now, let’s return to the free-rider problem in group activities that we discussed at the beginning. In group activities, each member has a specific role, and every group member must take responsibility for their role and perform it diligently. But what happens if someone fails to do the work assigned to them and shifts the burden onto others—in other words, if they free-ride? The other group members end up shouldering a heavier workload, and the entire team’s plans and schedule may be disrupted. In this way, it causes not only visible harm but also significant psychological damage, such as eroding trust and building up resentment. Ultimately, as discussed earlier, this is behavior that harms others and therefore cannot be considered a righteous way of life.
In other words, the example of free-riding allows us to reflect on what it means to live righteously. If you refrain from free-riding to avoid personal loss, you may actually end up suffering time and mental losses due to those who do free-ride. However, this is merely a result of viewing the situation from a short-term perspective. In the long run, those who act correctly gain greater trust, and the benefits for the entire community also grow. As trust and cooperation within society as a whole increase, those benefits ultimately flow back to the individual. This perspective can be described as a “right way of life” in a broader sense. In other words, I believe that the right way of life we should strive for is one in which we live in harmony with the community without harming others, and where our good deeds ultimately bring positive results back to ourselves.
