Slashdot Mirror
Study Suggests Too Much Collaboration Actually Hurts Productivity (inc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Inc:
Our attention in the workplace is a precious resource that often falls victim to tools like email, Slack, and so on, which bring a nonstop supply of things to read, things to respond to, things to file, things to loop others in on, things to follow up on, and in general, things to do. This "always on" dynamic has roots in a desire for increased workplace collaboration and productivity, but as is so often the case, it turns out there is a balance to be struck for optimal results. New research shows that groups who collaborate less often may be better at problem solving....
In a study titled "How Intermittent Breaks in Interaction Improve Collective Intelligence", the authors use a standardized problem-solving test to measure the contrast between time spent in collaboration mode against the quality and quantity of problem solving results. The group with no interaction predictably had the highest options for solutions, but those solutions were of lower overall quality. The group with high interaction had higher quality solutions, but less variety and a lower likelihood to find the optimal solution. The intermittent collaboration groups found the desirable middle ground to balance out the pros/cons of the no interaction and high interaction groups, leading them to become the most successful problem solvers.
The article warns of a "collaboration drain", suggesting managers pay closer attention to when collaboration is (and isn't) necessary. "Once upon a time in the land of business, people primarily communicated through conversations, meetings, and internally circulated printed memos. In the absence of email, Internet, cell phones, and CRMs there was a repeating cadence of connection, then disconnection, even while in the office."
"In this case, 'disconnected' really amounts to uninterrupted -- and able to focus."
In a study titled "How Intermittent Breaks in Interaction Improve Collective Intelligence", the authors use a standardized problem-solving test to measure the contrast between time spent in collaboration mode against the quality and quantity of problem solving results. The group with no interaction predictably had the highest options for solutions, but those solutions were of lower overall quality. The group with high interaction had higher quality solutions, but less variety and a lower likelihood to find the optimal solution. The intermittent collaboration groups found the desirable middle ground to balance out the pros/cons of the no interaction and high interaction groups, leading them to become the most successful problem solvers.
The article warns of a "collaboration drain", suggesting managers pay closer attention to when collaboration is (and isn't) necessary. "Once upon a time in the land of business, people primarily communicated through conversations, meetings, and internally circulated printed memos. In the absence of email, Internet, cell phones, and CRMs there was a repeating cadence of connection, then disconnection, even while in the office."
"In this case, 'disconnected' really amounts to uninterrupted -- and able to focus."
Every development position I've had, I spend the first 6-8 months building goodwill and trust. Exceeding delivery times, getting to know what's important to stakeholders, making sure everyone's input is (reasonably) utilized, and testing the hell out of things so they don't break. While those are, on their own, well and good, being on fire for 24 weeks is not my goal.
My goal, in actuality, is eventually avoiding 90% of meetings. The more I can create a sense of "he's on it", the more they leave me the hell alone.
It's worked beautifully everywhere. It ends up being a win-win: I spend more time actually working, and the only time folks in the org see me is when a) I'm listening to what they want and b) I'm delivering to them what they want. Which in turn breeds more goodwill.
TLDR; I love software development. I fscking hate meetings.