Recently on LinkedIn we asked a series of questions relating to partnership or pairs.
Like most relationships we were intrigued with the notion that opposites attract. We started with simple phrases, allowing people to respond to the word or phrase they preferred.
We recognised that LinkedIn as a closed group, and the responses, were those who chose to answer this curious set of questions. So what of these questions? They consisted of various opposites including “Summer or Winter? Book or TV?” Different questions were posted on LinkedIn each day over a 30 day period.
We expected little but we were surprised. Those who answered had various profiles and the responses were wide-ranging, some were controversial in places, but above all were thought-provoking. When we analysed the results we quickly realised, we needed to develop a sampling model that was more encompassing, that had a wider reach and that utilised a more credible methodology.
You can participate in our new questionnaire here. We focussed on popular culture, ranging from rock bands, through movies, technology to lifestyle. Questions included – Stones or Beatles? Bill or Mac? Snow or sun? So back to the questions polled. Another thread quickly emerged as we tried to increase the momentum of questions supplied. Namely, the understanding that people had for the perceived good over bad. It is often anticipated that in times of economic downturn the majority of respondents choose safe and traditional answers, e.g. more people chose The Beatles than The Stones.
However we realised that people also challenged the norm depending on brand recognition. Apple over PC? Apple tended to be favoured. Summer vs Snow – people chose snow. What else did our survey tell us? We learnt that people instinctively recognised the value of team.
When asked about Lennon or McCartney people still preferred the collective talents of The Beatles and McCartney over Lennon? Although the iconic songs remained with Lennon. Maybe The Stones remain Top of the Pops because the team of Jagger and Richards play to each other’s strengths. Break the team up like Lennon and McCartney and the individual parts do not outperform the sum of the parts.
So maybe the conclusion is that employers need to think long and hard before teams are broken up to save costs.
To do so may lead to irreconcilable differences
Glad I’ve fnially found something I agree with!
excellente a irestesca si rangento ivierdia con razeres. sulorro colamo se cismo son querro mi datadino riamo y ssestrive cangiro ssescosos.