Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> A study shows that when leaders are randomly chosen, group performance actually improves

Interesting, if true. Where can one find this study?




Some thoughts on that, not proven by anything that I know of:

People who desperately want to be a leader are rarely suited for it. They tend to hunger for power, rather than feel the need to help the group. It's possible they are competent, but more likely that they will use the group to suit their own ends, rather than working for the group.

People get jealous easily. If someone asks to be leader and gets it, others may feel jealous. If the leader is chosen randomly, it's harder to be jealous, since it was obviously fairly done.


I think regardless of the reasons why, people who want to be leaders, on the whole, clearly shouldn't be. Since these people comprise a small subset of the total of all people, simply choosing randomly will tend to not choose them. I doubt it has to do anything with fairness.

Maybe "leaders" aren't as necessary as people think, and actually are a drain on productivity.


> ...it's harder to be jealous, since it was obviously fairly done.

I assuming by 'fairly done' you mean 'completely random'. If you meant it in the sense of 'just', then I'm not sure I agree.


I didn't say it was done the best way. I said it was done fairly. As in, nobody had any advantage.



The study mentioned in the mindhacks story can be found on the author's website:

http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu/CAnderson%20Pilot%20Site/Pubs/...


The hypothesis of this paper rings true (based on my experience).




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: