Collaboration at work is generally seen as a good thing．The latest survey by the Financial Times of what employers want from MBA graduates found that the ability to work in a team，to work with a wide variety of people and to build，maintain and expand a network of people were three of the top five skills that managers wanted．
   But managers always have to balance the merits of teamwork，which help ensure that everyone is working towards the same goal，with the dangers of "groupthink"，when some don't point out the faults of a plan to fit in with others．When people are aware of the views of others，there is a tendency for them to follow，as participants are reluctant to look foolish by deviating from the majority view．The same effect may lead to stock-market bubbles．
   Modern communication methods mean that collaboration is more frequent．Workers are constantly in touch with each other via e-mail，messaging groups or mobile calls．But does that improve or worsen performance？
   A new study by Ethan Bernstein，Jesse Shore and David Lazer，three American academics，tried to answer this question．They set a logical problem （devising the shortest route for a travelling salesman visiting various cities）．Three groups were involved：one where subjects acted independently；another where they saw the solutions posted by team members at every stage；and a third where they were kept informed of each other's views only intermittently （間歇地）．
   The survey found that members of the individualist group reached the best solution more often than the
constant collaborators，but had a poorer average result．The intermittent collaborators found the right result as often as the individualists，and got a better average solution．
   When it comes to idea generation，giving people a bit of space to find a solution seems to be a good idea．Occasional collaboration can be a big help；most people have benefited from a colleague's wise advice to avoid a particular course of action．
   Close teamwork may be vital in the lower reaches of a group，but at the top，someone has to make a decision．At this stage，intense collaboration may be less helpful．Fashion houses with co-creative directors are rated as less creative by industry experts than brands that were individually led．Co-led teams of Himalayan climbers are more likely to suffer deaths than those with single leaders．Experts think that co-leadership "creates uncertainty over who is really in charge"．The battles between Sandy Weill and John Reed when they were co-chief executives of Citigroup in the late 1990s were infamous．Less than 5% of companies in the Fortune 500 have used a co-CEO structure since 1989．In short，collaboration may be a useful tool，but it doesn't work in every situation．

（1）What does the underlined word "deviating" in Paragraph 2 probably mean？

B

B

A．Suffering．
B．Differing．
C．Varying．
D．Ranging．
（2）In the new study conducted by three American academics，

D

D

．
A．constant collaborators had the poorest average solution
B．a(chǎn)ll subjects had the chances to visit a variety of cities
C．individualists found the right result the most often
D．occasional collaboration promoted performance
（3）From the last paragraph，we can learn that

A

A

．
A．fashion houses were more likely creative with a single authority
B．Himalayas climbers work together to avoid potential deaths
C．Sandy Weill and John Reed were not so creative leaders
D．successful companies have one Chief Executive Officer
（4）What is the best title for the passage？

B

B

A．What is collaboration？
B．When does collaboration work？
C．Why collaboration is highly valued？
D．How to collaborate with others in a team？