3 ms·

Let's suppose: what you say is true and they're like sheep. A guy in a group panicking has the rest of them to, kind of, validate his emotion. He might be panic

Let's suppose: what you say is true and they're like sheep. A guy in a group panicking has the rest of them to, kind of, validate his emotion. He might be panicking but he knows where he stands. By himself he doesn't even have that reassurance. He doesn't have anything to measure his emotions against. Does that make sense?

1123581321 7y ago
I understand the theory, but since I haven’t found traders to make better decisions in groups, I was wondering what the source was for the increased rates of bad decisions due to remote work.
- munk-a 7y ago
  That says something really interesting about traders - that more of them essentially add no value - but I am also wondering why you think Leadership would have increased presence when folks are remote. People in companies tend to clique up, it's just how humans do, normally, in an office setting, these cliques are rather limited in terms of exclusive discussion to private messaging, lunch & coffee. Part of this is due to the fact that in an office setting cliques tend to be eroded by shared company and leadership is always quite visible (or it's doing it wrong). To contrast, when folks are remoting these cliques will instead turn into echo chambers where the members are constantly primarily exposed to one another and leadership will become less visible as it is limited to interacting with smaller segments of the team at any given time.
  - 1123581321 7y ago
    I don’t think leadership would have increased presence overall. It would certainly not be good, either, for leadership to be remote while everyone else worked together in-person—I’m assuming most employees are remote in these situations. The benefit of more traders/analysts/customer-facing staff is that they can do more work. Part of the groupthink problem is that the work becomes commingled into a few big decisions in which case the value of the additional employees does temporarily become reduced, but the workload is still available the rest of the time. Again, this is in my anecdotal experience, hence the source request.

1123581321 7y ago

I understand the theory, but since I haven’t found traders to make better decisions in groups, I was wondering what the source was for the increased rates of bad decisions due to remote work.

munk-a 7y ago
That says something really interesting about traders - that more of them essentially add no value - but I am also wondering why you think Leadership would have increased presence when folks are remote. People in companies tend to clique up, it's just how humans do, normally, in an office setting, these cliques are rather limited in terms of exclusive discussion to private messaging, lunch & coffee. Part of this is due to the fact that in an office setting cliques tend to be eroded by shared company and leadership is always quite visible (or it's doing it wrong). To contrast, when folks are remoting these cliques will instead turn into echo chambers where the members are constantly primarily exposed to one another and leadership will become less visible as it is limited to interacting with smaller segments of the team at any given time.
- 1123581321 7y ago
  I don’t think leadership would have increased presence overall. It would certainly not be good, either, for leadership to be remote while everyone else worked together in-person—I’m assuming most employees are remote in these situations. The benefit of more traders/analysts/customer-facing staff is that they can do more work. Part of the groupthink problem is that the work becomes commingled into a few big decisions in which case the value of the additional employees does temporarily become reduced, but the workload is still available the rest of the time. Again, this is in my anecdotal experience, hence the source request.