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.
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.
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.