In my experiences, working as a team has always produced
greater results versus when people are working alone. Having the ability to bounce ideas off of one
another really allows peoples ideas to evolve and turn into something
greater. When working alone, everybody
is relatively close minded because they have no one else to talk to about their
ideas.
Last summer, the group of interns I worked with and I were
given a project with about 3 weeks left in the summer. For the most part, all of us had been doing
work individually and we had not really collaborated a lot on anything. Our project was to plan an event for our
company.
The event was a type of career fair sponsored by the
National Association of Professional Women.
There were about 50 companies at the event and we needed to organize it
all. We had to coordinate where we were
going to have different parts of the event and we had to develop a well thought
out time all of it. All of us interns
had different specialties. We all had
different ideas and we were all nervous about planning our first event.
Two weeks in we were done with all of our planning and our
boss came in and gave us an interesting option.
He told us that we were going to decide how much we all were going to
get paid. He gave us one lump sum of money
and told us that however we thought the money should be allocated is what he
would do.
I think that our boss doing this was an incredible decision
by him. Realistically, the money was not
that great of an amount as we were only interns and did not get paid that
much. After our boss left the room, we
all started throwing out some ideas. We
ended up all agreeing that the easiest solution to this problem was splitting
the money evenly. Even though some
people did more work than others, it would be impossible to negotiate a
difference in pay because nobody would be willing to accept less money than the
less person.
I do not believe that the pay rates were fair because two
other interns and I did a majority of the work.
We really took a leadership role in the group and organized all of the
work we had and made it manageable for the entire group to accomplish. Although I do not necessarily agree with how
we all got the same amount of money, I obviously understand why that was the
only way that we were all going to agree.
My situation at my internship was related to the first
situation in the “How to get riches out of marbles” article. It is obviously a much different scenario,
but I believe that the principles of sharing are the same in the two
situations. For the kids, when they
worked together and got a different amount of marbles, the kid who obtained
more marbles feels a sense of obligation to give his extra marble to the other
kid because of the fact that he could not have received any of the marbles
without the help of his partner.
In my situation, even though we did not all do the same
work, when delegating the money, we all felt a sense of teamwork and the fact
that we really did need everybody made us all split the money equally. In theory, if we were to have delegated the
money solely on how much work every person did, our situation would have been
more like the third condition in the article.
You earn your money by doing work. The kids pulled the ropes separately and got
their own marbles because they pulled their rope. There was no teamwork involved which is why
the kids felt no obligation to share the extra marble with the other kid. This would not work for our group because
there was a great amount of teamwork involved in us producing our outcome. Teamwork is a huge component of feeling a
need to share. You feel a sense of
obligation to share because you needed to rely on the other people in order to
do your own job. This reliance leads to
a willingness to share.
You might reread your very first sentence. I think you meant the last word to be "together" but you wrote "alone."
ReplyDeleteThe rest of your story is interesting. I wonder about something you didn't elaborate on. Did you interact with the interns after the sharing rule was determined? In other words, did the sharing rule condition subsequent behavior? If so, that is different from the experiment that Haidt describes.
I can imagine two distinct reasons for equal sharing even when you have reason to believe that not everybody is pulling their weight. The first reason is about avoiding hassles. People who get less than a full share are apt to complain. Many people are uncomfortable dealing with the complaints of others. In this sense, equal sharing is the easy way out. The other reason is that while people may not be putting in the same effort as others, they may put in even less effort after they are told they are getting less than a full share. That would either worsen the overall product or put further burden on those who are working hard on the project.
I'm not sure which of those best explains what happened in your case, but either one of these seems somewhat different from the the experiments that Haidt wrote about. We'll discuss these differences in class on Monday.