Teams

Do We Still Need Teams?

by Constance Noonan Hadley and Mark Mortensen
April 26, 2022

master1305/Getty Images

Summary. The reason teams became so popular in the 1980s is that when they
work, they really work. Great teams can generate creative solutions to complex
problems as well as rewarding experiences of camaraderie and challenge for
employees. Unfortunately, even... more

We love teams. We really do. Between the two of us, we’ve spent
more than 40 years studying, teaching about, and coaching teams
in organizations — which is why we’re surprised to find ourselves
writing an article in which we question whether teams are as
practical or as necessary to knowledge work as they once were.
Our thinking is driven by the many conversations we’ve had lately
with employees at all levels, from summer interns to CEOs. In
every echelon, we hear worries about work-life balance, burnout,
employee disconnection, and turnover. For those who work on or
lead teams, the strain seems to be even greater — and we think we
know why.

When Teams Work

First, let’s take a step back to remember why we started using so
many teams in knowledge work in the first place, because they’re
relatively new.

White-collar teams rose to become the prominent organizational

paradigm in the early 1980s as a response to technological
advances and the globalization of the economy. The reason teams
became so popular is because when they work, they really work.
Great teams can generate creative solutions to complex problems,
as well as offer rewarding experiences of camaraderie and
challenge for employees. Indeed, high-performing teams go
beyond just excellent work products — they also create growth
opportunities for members and the kind of culture that people
can’t wait to join.

When Teams Don’t Work

Unfortunately, even high-performing teams incur costs. These
costs have been well known for decades. In a 2009 interview with
HBR titled “Why Teams Don’t Work,” our late mentor, J. Richard
Hackman, said: “Research consistently shows that teams
underperform, despite all the extra resources they have. That’s
because problems with coordination and motivation typically
chip away at the benefits of collaboration.”
We raised our own concerns about the sustainability of teamwork
in an article we wrote at the start of the pandemic, where we
advised managers to take a triage approach to identifying and
managing team stressors. As we look ahead to the post-pandemic
future, we foresee these stressors continuing to mount, which
means it’s time to reassess when and how to use teams in
organizations.

Are Teams Still Worth It?

Before rushing to replicate team structures or investing in team-
support technology, we urge managers to do the math once more
to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs. Unfortunately,
hybrid work may tip the balance in the wrong direction.

Increased costs
Teams have always had to expend a significant amount of time,
energy, and attention on coordination tasks like disseminating
and directing information, resources, and work; establishing
healthy norms and resolving conflicts; aligning motivations and
efforts; integrating disparate personalities; and putting together
combined deliverables. Working globally adds time zone, cultural,
and linguistic differences to the mix as the basis for subgroups or
misunderstandings. For these reasons, collaboration overload has
been a risk for some time.

The widespread increase in hybrid work has massively multiplied

that complexity. Keeping in mind that all the costs outlined above
still exist, team members have dispersed further — at times
working in the office and at others remotely and at varying
locations, each offering different resources and distractions. It’s
important to keep in mind that leaders shouldn’t think about
team members independently, because where each individual sits
also affects the configuration of the whole team — creating new
subgroups, majorities, minorities, and isolates — to significant
effect.
As if coordinating across these locations wasn’t complex enough,
employees are demanding more autonomy over when they work
in the office, which means trying to align shifting schedules as
well. Even these patterns are a moving target: A 2022 global
study finds that more than half the workforce is
considering increasing their level of hybridity in the future. All of
this adds dramatically to the complexity of the coordination tasks
teams must undertake — and to the cost in time, effort, and
energy to do so.

This level of variance that hybrid teamwork creates has never

been seen before in organizational life and is bringing many
managers to the breaking point. In that same recent study, 74% of
global managers reported they don’t currently have the resources
or influence needed to run their hybrid workforce well.

Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter

The New World of Work
Candid conversations on talent, tech, and the future of
business. A special email series for subscribers.
Sign Up

Reduced benefits
In addition to rising coordination costs, contemporary teams are
experiencing reduced benefits. Research has found that team
collaboration has been especially impaired in terms of creative
work, visioning, and decision-making outcomes since the
pandemic began.

Remote and hybrid teams are also suffering from a lack of social
connection and belonging. We’ve seen in our own research that
global executives are feeling less connected than ever before,
despite being on an average of three work teams. In fact, being on
a team can make people feel more lonely because it sets up a
contrast effect. If employees are expecting to experience strong
relationships with their teammates and they do not, they often
feel the disappointment and loneliness more acutely.

What If the Math Doesn’t Work?

New advice for reducing some of those costs and creating more
bonded, close-knit teams across remote/office boundaries is
emerging — for example, empowering smaller groups to make
decisions and fostering psychological safety. If those team
intervention steps don’t move the needle, it’s time to think about
team alternatives.

One choice is to disband or significantly reduce teams in favor of

a higher proportion of individual contributors. Some are even
calling for reducing jobs down to tasks to disaggregate the work
further.

A less radical solution is to step down from “true teams” to the use
of “co-acting groups.” As we’ve stated in past research, true teams
have a shared mindset, a compelling joint mission, defined roles,
stable membership, high interdependence, and clear norms. Co-
acting groups represent a loose confederation of employees who
dip in and out of collaborative interactions as a project or
initiative unfolds.

In this configuration, there is still plenty of coordination work to

do — perhaps even more so. Yet the process becomes more
streamlined and controllable. For example, rather than
orchestrating team meetings on a daily or weekly basis, managers
can focus on touching base with each group member individually.
Because one-on-one interactions require the combination of just
two calendars and are easier to accomplish both synchronously
and asynchronously, they’re likely to result in a reduction in
coordination costs as compared to hybrid teams.

There is also some potential for co-acting groups to result in

reduced benefits as compared to best-case hybrid teams,
particularly for creativity, collaboration, and camaraderie. We
believe this downside can be mitigated (and the upside increased)
by following some principles for effective co-acting groups:

Design projects to include a few “big bang” moments of joint

brainstorming, decision making, and socializing. This will help
build morale as well as generate some of the synergies that
teams can provide.
Recruit employees with qualities such as self-direction,
flexibility, and cooperativeness. Clarify the expectation that
they’ll need to be able to switch gears between independent
and collaborative work on a regular basis.
Create incentives and reward structures that reinforce
cooperation and minimize competition among group members.
Use dashboards and other transparent monitoring systems to
help the whole group keep track of workstreams and progress.
Create standardized onboarding and integration protocols to
minimize disruptions as workers join and leave groups.
Develop cross-training programs and provide more
opportunities for professional development to give employees
more flexibility in how they can contribute.
Stop calling groups “teams” and avoid overpromising the
degree of cohesion and belonging expected to come from them.

In addition, organizations should continue to seek ways to replace

the gains once driven by teams. For example, they can create
social support mechanisms for employees (e.g., employee
resource groups), open brainstorming opportunities (e.g.,
hackathons), and compelling culture-building activities (e.g.,
company retreats).

So, Is This the Death of Teamwork?

To repeat, we are not anti-team. In their full glory, teams are
worth the investment, even today. Yet we know as well as anyone
how challenging it can be to execute them successfully. All too
 often, teams fall below their potential. If this is the case in your
organization, it’s time to think more seriously about new ways of
working.

Constance Noonan Hadley is an

organizational psychologist and founder of the
Institute for Life at Work as well as a lecturer at
Boston University’s Questrom School of
Business. She conducts research on employee
well-being, relationships, psychological safety,
teams, and the future of work. Her goal is to
help organizations identify and address pain
points so that work life can be improved for all
employees.

Mark Mortensen is an associate professor of

organizational behavior at INSEAD.

Recommended For You

The New Science of Building Great Teams

Are You Prepared to Lead a Diverse Team?

When Is Teamwork Really Necessary?

PODCAST
What Jazz Can Teach Leaders about Innovation and Teamwork