All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on t... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Group Question
Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.
However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single “extra miler”-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.
But this “escalating citizenship,” as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesn’t progress until they’ve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that they’re no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, it’s important to distinguish among the three types of “collaborative resources” that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skills—expertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve one’s awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include one’s own time and energy.
These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be shared—often in a single exchange—without depleting the collaborator’s supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employee’s time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that person’s own work.
Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resources—or better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge libraries—people ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.
Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of today’s most pressing business challenges. But more isn’t always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.
 
 
Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?
  • a)
    Collaborative overload
  • b)
    Efficient collaboration
  • c)
    Collaboration and teamwork
  • d)
    Personal collaboration
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Co...
Solution: The passage constantly stresses on the point that excessive amount of collaboration at a workplace is likely to impact the performance of the employee. Moreover, the passage says in its conclusion that chief collaboration officers must be hired to shift the burden of collaboration from the shoulders of the employees. Thus, only option 1 fits as a suitable title. The other options do not effectively address the subject of the passage.
Hence, the correct answer is option 1.
View all questions of this test
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single “extra miler”-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this “escalating citizenship,” as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesn’t progress until they’ve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that they’re no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, it’s important to distinguish among the three types of “collaborative resources” that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skills—expertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve one’s awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include one’s own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be shared—often in a single exchange—without depleting the collaborator’s supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employee’s time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that person’s own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resources—or better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge libraries—people ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of today’s most pressing business challenges. But more isn’t always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?

Answer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single “extra miler”-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this “escalating citizenship,” as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesn’t progress until they’ve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that they’re no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, it’s important to distinguish among the three types of “collaborative resources” that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skills—expertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve one’s awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include one’s own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be shared—often in a single exchange—without depleting the collaborator’s supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employee’s time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that person’s own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resources—or better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge libraries—people ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of today’s most pressing business challenges. But more isn’t always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the collaborative resources is the conventional choice of people when they want to collaborate?

Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the collaborative resources is the conventional choice of people when they want to collaborate?

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Collaboration is taking over the workplace. As business becomes increasingly global and cross-functional, silos are breaking down, connectivity is increasing, and teamwork is seen as a key to organizational success. Certainly, we find much to applaud in these developments.However, when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. Consider a typical week in your own organization. How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single extra miler-an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role-can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.But this escalating citizenship, as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesnt progress until theyve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that theyre no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. In our quest to reap the rewards of collaboration, we have inadvertently created open markets for it without recognizing the costs. First, its important to distinguish among the three types of collaborative resources that individual employees invest in others to create value: informational, social, and personal. Informational resources are knowledge and skillsexpertise that can be recorded and passed on. Social resources involve ones awareness, access, and position in a network, which can be used to help colleagues better collaborate with one another. Personal resources include ones own time and energy.These three resource types are not equally efficient. Informational and social resources can be sharedoften in a single exchangewithout depleting the collaborators supply. That is, when I offer you knowledge or network awareness, I also retain it for my own use. But an individual employees time and energy are finite, so each request to participate in or approve decisions for a project leaves less available for that persons own work.Unfortunately, personal resources are often the default demand when people want to collaborate. Instead of asking for specific informational or social resourcesor better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge librariespeople ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.Collaboration is indeed the answer to many of todays most pressing business challenges. But more isnt always better. Leaders must learn to recognize, promote, and efficiently distribute the right kinds of collaborative work, or their teams and top talent will bear the costs of too much demand for too little supply. In fact, we believe that the time may have come for organizations to hire chief collaboration officers. By creating a senior executive position dedicated to collaboration, leaders can send a clear signal about the importance of managing teamwork thoughtfully and provide the resources necessary to do it effectively. That might reduce the odds that the whole becomes far less than the sum of its parts.Q. Which of the following is the most appropriate title for the passage?a)Collaborative overloadb)Efficient collaborationc)Collaboration and teamworkd)Personal collaborationCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup