[bmacho]

So bad article. It is waay too long and it is just repeating ~3 claims without even looking like the author is interested in their truthness.

Here's a nice pdf version of the sourced article 'Pentland, A. (2012) The new science of building great teams' : <https://globalioc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-New-Sci...>

That one at least tries to look valuable, e.g. they mention someone implemented their ideas and their team's productivity went up (although we don't know if more than what Hawthorne effect would've caused alone).

OTOH to be a thought-provoking piece it suffices, and the concepts it defines might turn out to be useful when you try to increase the productivity of your teams.

[ricardobeat]

This is a confusing comment. There is no repetition in the article, and it goes over examples of workplaces that implemented these ideas. It’s basically a shorter version of the paper.

[bmacho]

I see now, it gives the same example as the article I linked, even worded a bit shorter. I missed that.

TFA certainly doesn't have the tone what I want from an article that talks about facts, compared to the linked/source article that talks about their own experiments, research and results, in plural first-person.