 |
| "The Highlader" |
292. Miles Shore did research on "fertile pairs," unmarried couples who produce interesting research or art together. Do you think it is possible that we might be able to create more success stories like these if institutions hired more people to work together as "co-directors" of projects, "co-teachers" of classes, or "co-coaches" of teams?'
There are many domains in which we expect one person to be in charge. Is that necessary or is just something we've grown used to?
It could be possible to create more success stories if pairs of people were placed in charge of tasks. Society has become comfortable with only answering to one person in some cases. This could be detrimental. For example, as "The Undoing Project" has pointed out, people form biases. Group managed tasks could lead to less bias and more fairness. There is a negative aspect to consider too. If the parings often disagree, work may be slow to finish or never get finished at all. However, society may benefit greatly from these pairings in certain areas where positions are tasked with making more powerful decisions.
ReplyDelete-Megan Lewis
Though it is uncommon, people oftentimes are highered or forced to work in pairs. The coaching example, for example, bigger teams of sports or academic fields tend to have co-coaches. If you think about it, anytime someone is solely in charge of decision making that person tends to look to others for advice, whether they research what others have done, ask their colleagues, or seek advice from people completely separate from the situation. Yes, we are prone to believe that there can only be one, but oftentimes that “one” has many people helping them with their toughest problems.
ReplyDeleteGracie T.
I think it would be a great idea for more jobs to have two leaders. This would help keep people from being blindsided and keep any one person from acting irrationally. It would make things much better in the long run in most situations. While many people can function as a leader on their own, eventually someone will end up in that position who cannot do as well of a job. If you put two people in charge, you eliminate the possibility of people not functioning on their own. It makes it less risky as a whole to hire a new leader. It can have drawbacks, obviously. If the two cannot get along it will complicate the situation. However, I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this scenario.
ReplyDeleteI agree Katlyn,
DeleteThere is always a possibility for another successful duo like Daniel Kahnman and Amos Tversky. It may lead to less bias and more trustworthy conclusions. If you were to use most siblings as an example (usually younger children), I can greatly see your input about when they disagree it’s hard to get a task accomplished. Although, I think if two people (like Daniel and Amos) ruling over one position of a great responsibility is what there needs to be more of in society today.
There is another side to the coin though, if the position is not overly important (say like a principal of a highschool that holds only 100 students). That position does not need another co-principal. The tasks that need to be completed do not need multiple minds. Then there is a CEO of a huge company. I believe they would need co-CEO so they may make the best decisions for said company.
I believe that the question of one person or multiple people being in charge depends on the situation. In some cases, one person needs to be in charge to keep everyone else in check, in order to keep things running smoothly. There are many people who need a leader to inspire them to do their best at something. However, in a place such as a successful company, I feel that the more people in charge, the more ideas there are to help make the company more successful.
ReplyDeleteHi Gianna! I really agree with your points here. Sometimes, the more people that are in charge, the more confusing and chaotic an environment can be. There are exceptions to this, as sometimes it is good to divide the power that comes along with leadership among a few individuals. Leaders can be great when it comes to helping the process of generating new ideas, and I think it is great that you brought that up.
Delete292. I believe in certain domains a singular leader can be the most efficient, but in other cases a group of diverse leaders can prove effective. I see singular leaders only effective when there is mutual respect and trust between the leaders and the group being led.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is definitely something we’ve just grown used to. The United States is such an individualistic society that sharing a leadership role seems unusual or weird. The only “acceptable” shared role is child rearing, and only one between two romantic partners. People would rather judge than realize that some people need more, or something other, than just the typical parental unit.
ReplyDelete-Dixie Redman
It is hard to imagine a world where every leadership role has a co-leadership role, but I think that it could be a very good thing if the world was ever brave enough to try it out. I think when two or more people gather and collaborate ideas, new inventions and ways of thinking/learning come about. I never think there is just one way to solve problems, so with more people solving them, the better they are solved.
ReplyDelete