I agree that on-the-job working in pairs is rare. There are some exceptions such as pair programming and law enforcement (police work in pairs usually) but not many others!
Why are pairs so rare?
I attribute it to the fact that some supervisors and project managers either:
- don’t know what is technically involved in enough detail to think of a way to allocate work to teams of two. When they do, it usually isn’t two workers who are peers. Instead, one is experienced and the other is less so or maybe new to the company or project, and mostly “shadows” the experienced person. It is more like one person working, and the other person watching and learning!
- are concerned that two people who are peers—and should contribute equally—will not. One person will do most or all of the work. Why does this happen, and why doesn’t the one who contributes say something about it to management or the team leader? Lots of reasons, some of which I couldn’t ever figure out! Even when I suspected this was going on, it wasn’t possible to prove without the cooperation of the person who was doing the bulk of the work.
People can work in pairs most effectively when there are not multiple dependencies in the workflow/ timing. For example, one person might write the code to do some analysis, after or maybe simultaneously with the other person who looks for a data source then tests/confirms its adequacy (e.g. quality, frequency, time span, availability/cost, has a data dictionary) for the analysis. Yet even this scenario is more accurately described as two people working on two different parts of a project (or assignment, or experiment) rather than working as a pair.
An eponymous example
The only example that quickly comes to my mind is pairs programming. I did that at work, briefly. It was fascinating and revealing!
