My theory is that it's a lot easier to get WORK done when you're not part of a group. When teams form... group dynamics take place and this includes politics a

My theory is that it's a lot easier to get WORK done when you're not part of a group. When teams form... group dynamics take place and this includes politics and conformity and social cohesion requirements. Teams demand a 'team player' that they can 'drink a beer with' which means group dynamics becomes as important, if not more important then the work being done which adds a lot of overhead to working, I.e. playing politics, selling your ideas over others, office chitchat, forging alliances to get your ideas done, etc. Anyone whose worked in an office knows what I'm talking about. You can't just show up and passionately go to work, there's a whole element of social interaction involved. And often in teams people are promoted who are better at maintaining social cohesion than performing the actual work and these likable people begin to dictate the goal as much if not more than the people with the deep knowledge who put less effort into building relationships than they do into doing the work. So the nature of a group/team tends to select for people who put a priority on maintaining social cohesion versus people who are extremely focused and knowledgeable and passionate about the work. So a genius, if they have a choice, is pretty much always going operate alone or in groups of one or two Just a theory. Also: There's a big difference between collaboration....and being a part of a team that dictates the direction of a goal.