The Audience Effect: Why Entrepreneurs Work Better When Watched

There is a phenomenon that most entrepreneurs notice but rarely analyze. You can sit alone for hours on a task that refuses to budge. Yet, in a meeting with a partner, the same task is solved in twenty minutes. Working in a coworking space feels different than working at home. A deadline with a real person feels different than a deadline marked only in a calendar.

These are not random observations; they are manifestations of one of the most stable effects in social psychology. The presence of other people physiologically changes how we work. This is backed by over a century of research—from the first experiments in the late 19th century to modern data in behavioral economics.

Where it began: early experiments and the riddle of contradictions

The story begins in 1898, when American psychologist Norman Triplett noticed that cyclists rode faster when racing against others than when riding alone against a stopwatch. He conducted an experiment with children winding fishing line onto reels: in pairs, the children worked faster than they did alone. This was one of the first laboratory studies in social psychology.

In the following decades, research accumulated, but results were contradictory. Sometimes the presence of others improved performance, while at other times it worsened it. There was no explanation—until 1965.

Zajonc: the theory that reconciled the contradictions

In 1965, Robert Zajonc published an article in the journal Science titled "Social Facilitation," which became one of the most cited works in social psychology. Zajonc proposed an elegant explanation for why the same data showed both performance improvements and declines.

His argument rested on two concepts: arousal and dominant response.

The presence of other people increases physiological arousal—a basic reaction observed across many species. Zajonc collected data showing that dogs run faster, chickens eat more, ants build larger structures, and cockroaches run straight corridors at higher speeds—all in the presence of their conspecifics. In one of the most unusual experiments (Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman, 1969), cockroaches actually ran faster through a straight corridor when observed by other cockroaches through a transparent partition.

Increased arousal reinforces the dominant response—the action most likely to occur in a given situation. For well-practiced tasks, the dominant response is the correct one: the muscle is trained, and the algorithm is internalized. Arousal helps. For new, complex, or poorly practiced tasks, the dominant response is often wrong: the initial impulse is frequently incorrect, and arousal amplifies that error. The presence of others hinders performance.

This is the key to the contradictions. The presence of others improves the performance of practiced tasks and hinders the performance of new or complex ones. The former is called social facilitation, and the latter is social inhibition.

Bond and Titus’s 1983 meta-analysis systematized data on this topic: 241 studies, more than 23,000 participants. The results confirmed Zajonc’s pattern: the presence of others increases speed and productivity on simple tasks but reduces accuracy on complex ones.

What this means for the entrepreneur

This framework leads to a conclusion directly relevant to a founder’s daily work.

Entrepreneurial tasks fall into two categories that should be explicitly separated.

Operational and well-practiced tasks: conducting a meeting, writing a familiar type of document, making a call, clearing email, or making a standard process-related decision. For these, the presence of others is an asset. Working in a shared space with a team, in a coworking space, or in work sessions alongside others increases productivity through social facilitation.

Strategic and new tasks: writing a new pitch deck, figuring out a solution to an unprecedented problem, forming a position on a complex issue, or drafting the first version of something you have never done before. For these tasks, the presence of observers works against you—dominant responses are amplified, and in these cases, they are most often wrong. Deep creative and strategic work requires solitude or an environment with minimal social pressure.

This distinction is more important than it seems. Many entrepreneurs use the same environment for everything—both operations and strategy. Or, conversely, they isolate themselves completely, losing the facilitation effect for tasks where it would have been helpful. Consciously matching work types to the environment is not a matter of preference; it is a matter of physiology.

The mechanism of evaluation apprehension

Following Zajonc, research continued and produced an important clarification. In 1972, Nicholas Cottrell proposed an addition: it is not just the mere presence of others that causes arousal, but specifically evaluation apprehension—the feeling that you are being assessed and judged.

In Cottrell’s experiment, the presence of blindfolded people (who were physically nearby but could not assess the subject) yielded a smaller facilitation effect than the presence of observers with their eyes open. This suggests that the mechanism is partially cognitive: it matters not just that someone is nearby, but that they can see and judge our work.

For an entrepreneur, this has a concrete implication. An environment where you are evaluated by people whose opinions you value provides a stronger facilitation effect on practiced tasks. Working in the presence of peers—other entrepreneurs, mentors, or partners—amplifies the effect more than a neutral environment.

Public commitments and commitment devices

A separate, well-studied mechanism is not just the presence of others while working, but commitments made in advance.

In the 2010 Annual Review of Economics, Gharad Bryan, Dean Karlan, and Scott Nelson systematized research on so-called commitment devices—mechanisms a person uses against their future self to complete what they currently deem important. This stems directly from hyperbolic discounting, which we discussed in an article on procrastination: future rewards are devalued, so the individual, knowing this, voluntarily limits their future options.

Public commitment is one of the most powerful types of these devices. When you declare a goal publicly, a social mechanism is added to hyperbolic discounting: violating the commitment costs reputation and requires a public explanation. This raises the subjective cost of quitting and, consequently, increases the probability of completion.

Research by Goldsmith (Dominican University, published in the Journal of Leadership Studies, 2010), involving 267 people, showed that those who wrote down goals and sent weekly progress reports to an accountability partner achieved their goals significantly more often than those who simply formulated goals for themselves. The effect of accountability, combined with written documentation, produced the best results.

Bryan, Karlan, and Nelson also note an important limitation: commitment devices work best when the individual chooses to use them. Those imposed from the outside or those that are too rigid (for example, financial penalties perceived as threats rather than tools) can reduce internal motivation.

Coworking spaces and work communities: is there data?

The proliferation of coworking spaces over the last decade has provided an opportunity to test the effects of social facilitation in real working environments. A study by Jeremy Mixon and Laszlo Bazso, published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology in 2018, examined how entrepreneurs and freelancers evaluate working in a coworking space compared to a home office or corporate environment.

Key result: those working in coworking spaces rated their level of "thriving"—a combination of growth and vitality at work—significantly higher than those working from home or in traditional offices. The authors attribute this to several mechanisms: identification with a professional community, moderate social arousal (enough for facilitation, but not as intense as in a corporate open-plan office with direct colleagues), and autonomy in choosing one's work mode.

This is consistent with Zajonc’s theory: coworking provides an optimal level of presence by others—enough for physiological arousal and the facilitation of operational tasks, but without the evaluation apprehension typical of direct supervisors or partners.

What this means for the entrepreneur

Several practical conclusions follow from this research.

Separate your work environment by task type. For operational, well-practiced tasks, work in an environment with people: a coworking space, joint work sessions, or an open-plan office with your team. For strategic, creative, and new tasks, work in solitude or an environment with minimal social pressure. Mixing the environment for everything means risking inhibition where you need facilitation, and vice versa.

Use public commitments for tasks you systematically delay. If there is a task that has not moved for months, announce it to a specific person with a specific deadline. Not abstractly "telling everyone on social media," but targeting: a partner, mentor, or colleague whose opinion you value. It is the evaluative component, not just the informing, that creates the facilitating effect.

Build an accountability environment consciously. A mastermind group, regular meetings with a mentor, or an accountability partner are not just social formats for chatting. These are tools that intentionally use the mechanism of social facilitation and public commitment. An entrepreneur who has a regular point of accountability with peers works systemically differently than someone who reports only to themselves.

Do not use public commitments for new and unpracticed tasks. This is counterintuitive but follows directly from the theory. If you are doing something complex for the first time and announce it publicly, you are creating evaluation apprehension precisely where social inhibition is most likely. Public commitments work better for tasks where you are already competent enough that the dominant response is the correct one.

What does not work

The idea that "an open-plan office is always better" does not work. Research on open-plan offices in corporate settings shows mixed results: constant visual and auditory contact with colleagues facilitates simple tasks but systematically hinders deep concentration. For a founder who needs both operational and strategic thinking, one environment format cannot serve both.

Total isolation as a universal solution does not work either. Some entrepreneurs, especially those working solo or remotely, deprive themselves of the facilitation effect entirely. Data on coworking spaces shows that moderate social presence without direct evaluative pressure is one of the most productive formats for independent workers.

The idea of "publicly announcing everything to motivate yourself" does not work. The public commitment effect requires that you truly perceive the audience as significant—otherwise, the social mechanism does not trigger. Posting on social media before an audience whose opinion is indifferent to you creates no evaluation apprehension and provides no facilitation effect.

Summary

The presence of other people changes the quality of work—this is not a metaphor or a motivational thesis, but a physiological fact confirmed in hundreds of studies. The mechanism works through arousal and evaluation apprehension: it helps with well-practiced tasks and hinders new and complex ones.

For an entrepreneur, this means that environment is not just a question of comfort. It is a tool that can and should be designed according to the task type. Operations in the presence of others. Strategy in solitude. Public commitments for tasks where you are already competent and which you systematically delay. Accountability to significant people as a regular infrastructure, not a one-time tool.

Zajonc formulated this in 1965. Over sixty years, the data has only been confirmed.

---

Sources:

1. Zajonc, R.B. Social Facilitation // Science, 1965, 149(3681): 269–274. — https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269

2. Bond, C.F., Titus, L.J. Social Facilitation: A Meta-Analysis of 241 Studies // Psychological Bulletin, 1983, 94(2): 265–292. — https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.265

3. Cottrell, N.B. Social Facilitation // Experimental Social Psychology, ed. C. McClintock. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.

4. Bryan, G., Karlan, D., Nelson, S. Commitment Devices // Annual Review of Economics, 2010, 2: 671–698. — https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124324

5. Goldsmith, M. The Impact of Written Goals and Accountability on Goal Achievement // Dominican University / Journal of Leadership Studies, 2010. — https://scholar.dominican.edu/psychology-faculty-conference-presentations/3/

6. Mixon, J., Bazso, L. Coworking: Community as Activation Source // Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2018. — https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joop.12217