- Have we really avoided 14,000 coronavirus deaths?
- AI doctors outperform their fleshy counterparts, but still we don’t trust them
- Cryptozoology: The scientific study of fictional animals
- The parallels between ‘Taxi Driver’ and the incel movement
- After a six-year battle, Malka Leifer may finally be extradited
Collaboration. The bane of the tertiary and business world has been disproved by science. Long live workplace division!
There is a truth universally acknowledged that collaboration only works if one person is completely superior to the rest of the group. The annals of history are littered with these not-so-notable names that follow this truth. Art Garfunkel. John Oates. The other two tenors. Scott of the Antarctic. Benito Mussolini. Everyone in 5ive that wasn’t the guy with the lines shaved into his eyebrow. Heroes all.
However, this tinfoil hat marketing theory that the team is all has been disproven once and for all by science. That spot shower upon your shoulders represents the tears of middle management types everywhere weeping for the death of workplace collaboration. You were too beautiful for this world.
The problem, according to the study, is something important that we are subject to as species in each and every morning we find ourselves alive: our shortcomings.
You see, when a prize pig is forcibly marched into the pen that holds the common sow, mud and filth (read: outcomes) must be shared, which precipitates shrieked oinks of derision from both sides. According to the study published in PyschNET, this problem manifests itself in an outcome that all pigs reach: hurling shit at each other.
In the English of the study, the feelings of social isolation and danger are mirrored. Whether you feel like you’re being saddled with the losers, or if you’ve been saddled with this show off that management rates, the feeling is the same. The union in feeling, is only felt by a division of feeling. Wowsers trousers.
The findings of the study (which measured stylists and management students, because why not put the most volatile and unreasonable parties into a burlap sack and expect results?) found that the “mediocre” employees put their efforts into subterfuge; undermining the talent, manifesting in the spreading of rumours, or trying to appropriate credit for said talent’s work, proving that the study was penned by someone who was saddled into too many average group tasks in their tertiary education. Summed up, the findings read “cooperative contexts proved socially disadvantageous for high performers.”
This sentiment was backed up by the not-all-sounding-beta-male-commentary from a 2017 Inc. column that stated “the number one reason high performers leave organisations in which they are otherwise happy is because of the tolerance of mediocrity.”