Ross | Mr. Automotive Compliance Professional
GMAT 710, GPA 3.7
Wharton | Mr. Digi-Transformer
GMAT 680, GPA 4
Stanford GSB | Ms. 2+2 Tech Girl
GRE 333, GPA 3.95
Stanford GSB | Ms. Healthcare Operations To General Management
GRE 700, GPA 7.3
Chicago Booth | Ms. CS Engineer To Consultant
GMAT 720, GPA 3.31
Kenan-Flagler | Mr. Engineer In The Military
GRE 310, GPA 3.9
Chicago Booth | Mr. Oil & Gas Leader
GMAT 760, GPA 6.85/10
Stanford GSB | Mr. Seeking Fellow Program
GMAT 760, GPA 3
Wharton | Mr. Real Estate Investor
GMAT 720, GPA 3.3
Cornell Johnson | Ms. Chef Instructor
GMAT 760, GPA 3.3
Harvard | Mr. Climate
GMAT 720, GPA 3.4
Wharton | Mr. New England Hopeful
GMAT 730, GPA 3.65
Berkeley Haas | Mr. Bangladeshi Data Scientist
GMAT 760, GPA 3.33
Harvard | Mr. Military Banker
GMAT 740, GPA 3.9
Ross | Ms. Packaging Manager
GMAT 730, GPA 3.47
Chicago Booth | Mr. Private Equity To Ed-Tech
GRE 326, GPA 3.4
Harvard | Mr. Gay Singaporean Strategy Consultant
GMAT 730, GPA 3.3
Cornell Johnson | Mr. Electric Vehicles Product Strategist
GRE 331, GPA 3.8
Columbia | Mr. BB Trading M/O To Hedge Fund
GMAT 710, GPA 3.23
Columbia | Mr. Old Indian Engineer
GRE 333, GPA 67%
Harvard | Mr. Athlete Turned MBB Consultant
GMAT 720, GPA 3.4
Ross | Mr. Civil Rights Lawyer
GMAT 710, GPA 3.62
Stanford GSB | Mr. Co-Founder & Analytics Manager
GMAT 750, GPA 7.4 out of 10.0 - 4th in Class
Cornell Johnson | Ms. Environmental Sustainability
GMAT N/A, GPA 7.08
Cornell Johnson | Mr. Trucking
GMAT 640, GPA 3.82
Ross | Mr. Low GRE Not-For-Profit
GRE 316, GPA 74.04% First Division (No GPA)
Harvard | Mr. Marine Pilot
GMAT 750, GPA 3.98

New Study: Too Much Collaboration May Be Bad

New Study: Too Much Collaboration May Be Bad

Collaboration may not be all that great for complex problem solving.

At least that’s what new research by Harvard Business School associate professor Ethan Bernstein and colleagues finds.

The study, by Berstein of Harvard Business School, Professor Jesse Shore of the Questrom School of Business at Boston University and Professor David Lazer of Northeastern University, finds that intermittent collaboration may be better for complex problem solving than “always on” collaboration.

The Study And Assumptions

In the study, the researchers examined three-person groups performing a complex problem-solving task. There were three types of variables studied: one set of groups that never interacted with each other and solved the problem in complete isolation. Another set of groups featured members who interacted constantly. A third set of groups that interacted intermittently.

The researchers assumed, based on prior research, that the isolated groups would yield the most creative thinking yet the lowest average quality of solution. They also assumed that groups that had constant collaboration would produce an opposite effect: higher average quality solution, yet less creative solutions.

Findings

Both assumptions proved to be correct. Yet, perhaps the most striking finding of the study was the third set of groups that interacted intermittently. The researchers found that this group produced the “best of both worlds” results.

Despite having interacted only intermittently, the group had just as high quality of a solution as the group that interacted constantly. They also had performed just as creatively as the isolated groups to produce the “best” solutions.

Implications

The researchers highlight a number of real world associations that relate to the study’s findings.

In many ways, the findings already mirror how organizations deal with collaboration: individuals work alone, come together to collaborate, then break off again to work alone. Yet, the researchers highlight how technology has influenced that process.

“As we replace those sorts of intermittent cycles with always-on technologies, we might be diminishing our capacity to solve problems well,” Bernstein says.

Additionally, the researchers highlight how some teamwork approaches mirror this idea of “intermittent collaboration.” For instance, hackathons often follow a similar approach, where people gather and focus on a problem for a very short amount of time.

The concept of “intermittent collaboration” also is seen in how modern offices are designed. Open offices often include group spaces in addition to individual spaces, where workers can control how much interaction time they get.

Knowing the importance of “intermittent collaboration,” the researchers argue that always-on technology and digital collaboration can be detrimental to creative problem solving. It seems, after all, you may want to put down that phone if even just for a second.

Sources: Harvard Business School, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Page 1 of 3