Why More Collaboration Isn’t Always Better
So here’s the thing. Team collaboration is essential to success – that’s a no-brainer, right? But I learned something recently that genuinely surprised me. And I’ve been thinking about it ever since.
Teams that collaborate constantly don’t actually outperform teams that take breaks from each other.
In fact, they tend to do worse.
I know. Stay with me.
This counterintuitive reality challenges one of the most common assumptions in modern workplaces: that more collaboration automatically leads to better outcomes.
What the Research Shows
Think about your team right now. You’ve probably got Slack running. Maybe a shared Google Doc or Microsoft document open where everyone can see each other’s ideas popping up in real time. That feels productive, right? You’re connected. You’re collaborating.
But here’s where it gets interesting. Researchers at Harvard, Boston University, and Northeastern – Bernstein, Shore, and Lazer – found that those constantly connected teams actually scored higher on groupthink. The always-on visibility leads to what they call premature convergence. Basically, everyone starts gravitating toward the same ideas before anyone has had time to develop something truly different.
Where I’m going with this is: the teams that worked solo first and then came together? They produced more unique solutions and achieved better outcomes on complex problems.
The sweet spot wasn’t more collaboration or less collaboration – it was intermittent collaboration. Work alone, then come together. Diverge, then converge.
And the other thing that’s fascinating – the teams with zero collaboration, people working entirely alone, they generated the most unique possible answers. However, they missed out on learning from other team members…because they were working alone. Their average performance actually suffered because they never got the benefit of building on someone else’s insight.
So it’s not about avoiding collaboration. That would be just as problematic. It’s about rhythm.
What This Means for Your Team
One of the things I tell my clients is this: the next time your team needs to solve a problem or come up with ideas, resist the urge to have everyone jump in together from the very first moment.
Instead, think about it like this. Before your meeting, give each team member a set of questions to answer on their own. Let them wrestle with the challenge independently first. What’s their initial take? What solutions come to mind when they’re not immediately influenced by whatever the first person in the room said?
Then – and this is key – bring those individual perspectives to the table when you meet. Now you’re collaborating with raw material. You’ve got a richer pool of ideas to work with.
To be clear: I’m not saying don’t engage when you’re in the room together. When you meet, meet fully. Debate. Decide. Commit. But between those moments? Protect the space for independent thought. That’s where the best ideas often come from.
The Deeper Issue Behind Over-Collaboration
So here’s the other thing I’ve been thinking about. Most teams don’t actually have a collaboration problem. They have a trust problem that they’re trying to solve by adding more meetings.
When trust is low, people feel like they need to stay constantly visible. They CC everyone on emails. They create Slack threads about Slack threads. They schedule check-ins that don’t need to exist. They clock-watch – tracking who’s the first to arrive and the last to leave, as if presence equals commitment.
Early in my career, I watched two executives do what I call “seat filibustering” – literally doing busy work just to be the last one in the office. Neither was being more productive. They were just being more visible. And that’s the trap.
High-performing teams can separate because they trust each other to come back with something valuable. They don’t need constant visibility to feel secure.
It’s kind of like – okay, this is going to sound random – it’s like the difference between a team that rows together and a team that’s just sitting in the same boat. One has rhythm. The other just has proximity.
Reflective Questions for Leaders
Before your next meeting, ask yourself:
- Does this meeting need everyone present from the start? Or would we get better outcomes if people came prepared with their own thinking first?
- Are we collaborating because it’s actually more effective for this task? Or because it feels productive to be in the same room, on the same thread, watching each other work?
- Is our constant connection building on diverse ideas – or narrowing them prematurely?
Key Takeaway: The Best Collaboration Is Rhythmic
The research points to something counterintuitive: the best collaboration isn’t constant. It’s rhythmic. Work alone, then come together. Give your brain space to generate something original before you start synthesizing with others.
So I’ll leave you with this question: Is your team collaborating because it’s effective – or because it feels productive?
Because those aren’t always the same thing.
Want to find out how your team is really doing?
Want to find out how your team is really doing? Take the Great Teams Win Together® Quiz to see what’s driving – or stalling – your team’s performance.