A team pays off only when the task is bigger than any one person – and the bigger the task, the more it pays off.
A team is not an end in itself. It is an answer to a task that no one can manage alone: because it is too much work, because it calls for skills no single person combines, or because several things have to happen at once. Where that is the case, the team is necessary. Where it is not, the team is effort with nothing to show for it.
The team principle in detail
Four steps through the principle: understand, check, connect, apply. Open any topic to read more.
The explanationThe mechanism behind it is straightforward.
The mechanism behind it is straightforward.
- Working together always has a cost: coordination, waiting time, misunderstandings.
- These costs are worth paying only when the members genuinely depend on one another.
- Then working together produces something the individuals would never achieve working side by side.
What part of this task can none of us do alone?
Read closelyWhat the principle says – and what it doesn’t
The task is the reason for the team, not the other way around. First ask what the task is, then who should be on the team.
- It does not say
- That teams are inherently superior. Groups often fall short of what their best individual members could achieve together.
- Strictly speaking
- “The more it pays off” refers to the value of the team, not to headcount. A big task means you need a team – not that a big team is better.
- Applies to
- Tasks in which the contributions depend on one another. If the work can be cleanly divided into independent pieces, a working group of individuals is often the better solution.
The signs3 signs that the principle is at work · 3 that it is missing
- Everyone can say what they need the others for.
- Meetings revolve around handoffs and joint decisions.
- There is a result that can only be produced together.
- Meetings are rounds of status reports.
- People work side by side without connecting and experience coordination as a disruption.
- The team exists because it appears on the org chart.
The research6 sources: 2 primary studies, 2 theories, 1 meta-analysis, 1 critique · 1972–2019 · with research limitations
- low
- moderate
- high
Moderate – the first clause is well supported; the second (“the bigger the task, the more it pays off”) is supported only as a trend.
- 1972Ivan D. Steiner
Whether a group achieves more than an individual depends on the type of task. Actual performance falls short of potential performance because of process losses.
- 2002J. Richard Hackman
Five conditions for effective teams; the first is a “real team” – a task that genuinely requires working together.
- 2004Natalie J. Allen & Tracy D. Hecht
Belief in teams is stronger than the evidence for their performance. Teams satisfy social needs – which explains their popularity better than their results do.
- 2007Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi
19.9 million research papers and 2.1 million patents: teams are replacing solo authors in almost every field. Team papers are cited more often, and the lead is growing.
- 2019Lingfei Wu, Dashun Wang & James A. Evans
More than 65 million papers, patents and software products: small teams tend to produce disruptive ideas, while large teams tend to build on existing ones.
- Teams are not inherently superior, and people systematically overrate teamwork (Natalie J. Allen and Tracy D. Hecht).
- The study by Stefan Wuchty and colleagues shows a correlation, not causation; the authors themselves point to other explanations, such as specialization and changing authorship conventions.
- For team size, “the bigger, the more” does not hold: large teams tend to develop what already exists, small teams tend to spark something new.
Read more: what the research shows
Researchers call this task interdependence: the degree to which members depend on one another to do their work. Ivan D. Steiner showed that whether a group achieves more than an individual depends on the type of task, and that actual performance falls short of potential performance because of process losses. J. Richard Hackman names a “real team” as the first condition for effective teams – a task that genuinely requires working together. A meta-analysis by Stephen H. Courtright and colleagues supports this: task interdependence is linked to better performance through task-focused team processes. Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F. Jones and Brian Uzzi showed that in science, teams are replacing solo authors in almost every field and are, on average, cited more often.
The originJohn C. Maxwell · “The Law of Significance” · “The Law of Mount Everest”
- 2001OriginJohn C. Maxwell
The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork
- The Law of SignificanceOne is too small a number to achieve greatness
- The Law of Mount EverestThe higher the goal, the more the team matters
- todaySharpened
What is sharpened here is the condition: a team pays off only for tasks that genuinely require working together.
The related team principles03 Size · 06 Weakest Link · 16 Effort
In tension with it is “Size”: Necessity is the reason for the team, Size sets its limits.
The principle is connected to “Weakest Link” (tasks in which everyone depends on everyone else) and “Effort” (people who are needed try harder).
The action steps5 steps: Write the task down in one sentence and ask
- Write the task down in one sentence and ask: What part of it can no one do alone – because of the sheer volume, the skills required or the need to do things at the same time?
- Split the work in two: what requires working together, and what individuals can do independently. You need the team only for the first part.
- Make the interdependence visible. Spell out who needs whose contribution, and when.
- Take an honest look at existing teams. Where there is no real shared task, dissolve the team structure and spare everyone the coordination.
- When the task grows, strengthen the way people work together first – and only then, if necessary, add more people.
The questions for your team3 questions for your team conversation: What part of our task could none of us manage alone?
- What part of our task could none of us manage alone?
- Which of our meetings and coordination efforts serve this shared task – and which do not?
- Where do we work as a team even though individuals would be faster and better?
Take time for one question at your next team meeting. Talk about it openly and note down what you take away from it.
The picture to rememberA single dot pushes against a large ring and moves nothing.
- A single dot pushes against a large ring and moves nothing.
- Only when many others join in do they push it together – and the bigger the ring grows, the more of them lend a hand.
What the Team Principle of Necessity looks like in practice
Twelve on the Moon, 400,000 Behind Them
In 1961, John F. Kennedy sets the goal of landing a man on the Moon before the decade is out – at a time when there is no rocket, no spacecraft and no lunar lander. At the peak, more than 400,000 people at some 20,000 companies and universities are working on it, and on July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 lands.
One Paper, 5,154 Authors
In a 2007 paper in “Science,” Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F. Jones and Brian Uzzi analyzed 19.9 million research papers and 2.1 million US patents: teamwork is on the rise almost everywhere, and team papers are cited more often. In 2015, the first joint paper of the CERN experiments ATLAS and CMS on the mass of the Higgs boson carried 5,154 names.
Two on the Summit, Some 400 on the Mountain
On May 29, 1953, Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay stand on top of Mount Everest. Below them lie nine camps and the work of an expedition led by John Hunt, with 14 climbers, 20 Sherpas and 362 porters.
