In the lecture, it is shown in an experiment that the result is totally opposite to the theorem in the article.
In the lecture, it is shown in an experiment that the result is totally opposite to the theorem in the article. XGo8r
In the lecture, it is shown in an experiment that the result is totally opposite to the theorem in the article. The experiments were done on several groups of people to tell the results of group work after six months.
Firstly, many team members are free riders, but they can still get the benefit after the job achieved a good result. And the award on the talented person who actually engaged in the work can only be equal to other people in the group, which would bring a bad attitude to the man who actually work, because the outcome would only be valued by group. So, what has been said the benefit of gathering different people's knowledge and skills is absolutely wrong.
Secondly, the project would move slower, because it would be harder to settle a consensus in a group of people. Moreover, the people with big influence in the team would have negative effects on the movement of projects, because people don't want to take risks, so the idea would be so fragile if it is objected by one person, since people don't want to take the responsibility of failure which would be blamed on all of the members.
Finally, if someone noticed that their project has been off track and the leader insist on his idea, they may lose the opportunity to achieve the goal.
In the lecture, it
is shown
in an experiment that the result is
totally
opposite to the theorem in the article. The experiments
were done
on several
groups
of
people
to
tell
the results of
group
work after six months.
Firstly
,
many
team members are free riders,
but
they can
still
get
the benefit after the job achieved a
good
result. And the award on the talented person who actually engaged in the work can
only
be equal to other
people
in the
group
, which would bring a
bad
attitude to the
man
who actually work,
because
the outcome would
only
be valued
by
group
.
So
, what has
been said
the benefit of gathering
different
people
's knowledge and
skills
is
absolutely
wrong
.
Secondly
, the project would
move
slower,
because
it would be harder to settle a consensus in a
group
of
people
.
Moreover
, the
people
with
big
influence in the team would have
negative
effects on the movement of projects,
because
people
don't want to take
risks
,
so
the
idea
would be
so
fragile if it
is objected
by one person, since
people
don't want to take the responsibility of failure which would
be blamed
on
all of the
members.
Finally
, if someone noticed that their project has been off
track
and the leader insist on his
idea
, they may lose the opportunity to achieve the goal.