2 ms·

Collaboration has its place for when you need it. Sure, you can get great results despite paying the mental cost of collaborating (which is even higher if it's

Collaboration has its place for when you need it. Sure, you can get great results despite paying the mental cost of collaborating (which is even higher if it's happening through a computer screen). The problem is that we see the great results of occasional collaboration and we want more of that. Creating more artificial collaboration when you're capable of doing the task by yourself will just be expensive (both in terms of salary and mental health): it's not the answer.

haswell 4y ago
> Sure, you can get great results despite paying the mental cost of collaborating When I refer to the beneficial kind of collaboration, I’m referring to the kind where the cost of not collaborating is to not achieve the outcome at all. Paul McCartney is an excellent musician on his own. The Beatles achieved something as a group that no individual can achieve on their own. I agree that adding collaboration in a setting that doesn’t require it just adds mental cost. But in other settings, that mental cost is minimal compared to the enhanced output. > Creating more artificial collaboration when you're capable of doing the task by yourself will just be expensive We’re on the same page here. That’s what I mean by “Collaboration” in quotes. The kind that is not necessary. My main point/issue is that the article doesn’t seem to really acknowledge or explore that there is a good/bad kind. Just focusing on “employees need more time to do their actual work” is not useful if that employee’s actual work actually does require some form of collaboration. The ability to distinguish between the two seems to be the core issue that requires exploration.
diarrhea 4y ago
This is a great insight. Mapping productivity over collaboration intensity is a concave function. Its maximum is nowhere near the extreme ends. Yet, if people are near the maximum they might desire more of what has worked in getting them there, but to their right they’ll only find decline. This is such a common fallacy I wonder if it has a name.

haswell 4y ago

> Sure, you can get great results despite paying the mental cost of collaborating When I refer to the beneficial kind of collaboration, I’m referring to the kind where the cost of not collaborating is to not achieve the outcome at all. Paul McCartney is an excellent musician on his own. The Beatles achieved something as a group that no individual can achieve on their own. I agree that adding collaboration in a setting that doesn’t require it just adds mental cost. But in other settings, that mental cost is minimal compared to the enhanced output. > Creating more artificial collaboration when you're capable of doing the task by yourself will just be expensive We’re on the same page here. That’s what I mean by “Collaboration” in quotes. The kind that is not necessary. My main point/issue is that the article doesn’t seem to really acknowledge or explore that there is a good/bad kind. Just focusing on “employees need more time to do their actual work” is not useful if that employee’s actual work actually does require some form of collaboration. The ability to distinguish between the two seems to be the core issue that requires exploration.

diarrhea 4y ago

This is a great insight. Mapping productivity over collaboration intensity is a concave function. Its maximum is nowhere near the extreme ends. Yet, if people are near the maximum they might desire more of what has worked in getting them there, but to their right they’ll only find decline. This is such a common fallacy I wonder if it has a name.