Evidence that collaboration results in group-think and mediocrity

I've come to the conclusion that this often also applies to the founder / VC relationship. The best angels and VCs are relatively hands off, providing counsel when asked, hook ups and intros, and other resources but otherwise letting the founder steer the ship. Activist VCs tend to destroy anything innovative.

Is coloring creative? I think that's a different question from whether a complete, clean re-implementation of a software library is creative.

As for that question though, I'll push it a bit further - is drawing an outline of a bird creative? I'd argue it's more interesting than the next person coloring the bird. But it's also decidedly less interesting that what evolution has done in generating a bird from billions of years of evolution.

But I'd say yeah, something was created because the artist had a desire for the bird, and then produced it. Or, the artist (for some definition) had a desire for a green bird, then colored it. Of course, neither the drawing of the bird nor the coloring was novel.

So as it's not an autonomous manufacturing process, it's creative. Your bones generating blood cells is not creative work.

Software that adds colors between lines isn't itself creative, but the person who developed the software used creativity.

* I'm not a philosopher.

Groupthink is the loss of critical thinking as a consequence of cohesion and conflict avoidance.

Groupthink can be avoided if the culture rewards critical thinking. That includes:

- team members should be free to dissent from the majority if there's a reason.

- team members should keep a reasonable level of skepticism when it comes to other members' claims. if someone shows high confidence, that confidence should be also be subject to skepticism.

- if someone wishes to communicate their opinion, it needs to be done explicitly. e.g: in my opinion, . Interleaving opinions and facts creates unnecessary noise and bias. Usage of superlatives should be kept to a minimum as well.

I think it's collaboration by choice vs. collaboration by dictate. I had an awful time having to work with people that weren't at my level. And the work (not calling it "my" work, btw) always suffered as a result.

Then in my most recent project, I've done some of the best work of my life in conjunction with a collaborator. She was someone I chose, and we both brought our respective disciplines to bear. We were both quite open to and respectful of each other's input. But a lot of our work was done in solitude. Sometimes one or the other would bring a surprise to the next meeting, a distinctly different yet more elegant solution to the problem we set out to solve. It was easy for either of us to cast aside prior agreements and accept the more awesome result.

In previous jobs, I would be chastised for "going rogue" if I took a side journey to make something awesome. Some managers are blind to benefits like reductions in customer support/general headaches, increase in usability, reduction of time and motion, or just the general wow factor, when they are looking at meeting minutes.

IMO Collaboration is like any other tool. It can work fantastically when employed by skilled practitioners. And will produce shoddy results in the hands of the unskilled. Ego, pride and self-obsession also contribute to failure. It takes a somewhat enlightened person to be willing to let someone else in to their creative process. To accept criticism as a necessary part of the process of making great work, instead of taking it personally. To go to the mat as the lone dissenting voice when they know they're on to something great. And to know the difference when their own idea is something really great vs. gratuitous crap.

Reminds me of http://programming-motherfucker.com/

Entertaining but a bit sad. Clearly had bad experiences with collaboration and believe they are unique rockstars who only have to produce code, rather than a product that people want.