5 Surprising Truths About Teamwork That Research Uncovers

Based on: A Century of Work Teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology by Mathieu, Hollenbeck, Van Knippenberg, Ilgen et al. (2017) (Read the full paper)

Teamwork is the cornerstone of modern organizations—but our understanding of it has often been shaped more by myth than science. A sweeping review of 100 years of research from the Journal of Applied Psychology reveals that many of the most common assumptions about collaboration are actually false—or at least misleading.

This blog unpacks five of the most surprising truths about how teams really work, and why that matters for team development today.

‍

1. Teams Were Ignored for Decades in Workplace Psychology

‍

Despite their current importance, teams weren’t even on the research radar for the first three decades of the Journal of Applied Psychology. Between 1917 and 1949, not a single article in this leading workplace science journal focused on work teams.

Why? Because psychology at the time was obsessed with individual differences—how to select, train, and manage individual performers. Teams were seen as background noise, not a topic worthy of study.

Takeaway: Our interest in teams is a relatively modern phenomenon—and many teams still operate without the support of structured development because it's not deeply embedded in how workplaces are designed.

‍

2. Teamwork Was Once Seen as a Problem

‍

When teams did finally make it into the spotlight, researchers often saw them as a barrier to performance. Coordination between team members was considered inefficient and error-prone.

A key 1968 study even suggested that the more interaction team members had, the worse their performance. The prevailing wisdom? Design work so that people don’t have to depend on each other.

Takeaway: The value of collaboration is not a timeless truth—it’s a hard-won understanding. And it still needs to be cultivated intentionally, especially in teams that are under pressure or rapidly assembled.

‍

3. The Field of Team Research Nearly Disappeared

‍

By the 1960s, group and team research was in what one review called "deep hibernation." Academic interest dropped off, and teams were seen as a stale topic.

What brought them back? Urgent real-world problems: failures in military coordination, rising complexity in global business, and the increasing need for cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organizational psychology picked up the baton where social psychology had dropped it.

Takeaway: Teams didn’t become a research priority until they became a performance priority. This helps explain why many organizations still lack systematic, evidence-based approaches to team development.

‍

4. Feel-Good Team Building Doesn’t Guarantee Performance

‍

Plenty of teams enjoy trust falls, offsites, or team-building games. But studies show that positive team feelings don’t always lead to better outcomes.

One classic study found that teams who trained together reported more cohesion and openness—but actually performed worse than those with no such training. Another team development program received glowing feedback from participants—but had zero measurable impact on results.

Takeaway: Morale boosting is not the same as performance boosting. We need to distinguish between affective outcomes (how the team feels) and performance outcomes (what the team delivers).

‍

5. Teaming, Not Teams, Is the Future of Collaboration

‍

The final and perhaps most forward-looking insight: the very idea of a “team” is becoming less useful. Modern work is fluid, fast-moving, and project-based. People now collaborate in temporary, shifting units that form and dissolve as needed.

Harvard’s Amy Edmondson coined the term “teaming” to describe this process: building the ability to collaborate quickly and effectively without relying on stable team structures.

Takeaway: Instead of focusing only on long-term teams, we need to build teaming capabilities—shared habits, coordination routines, and rapid trust-building—for when people come together fast and need to perform immediately.

‍

Why This Matters for TeamPath: Make Teaming Basics Available to Everyone

‍

This research flips the script: most teams don’t get training. Many aren't even really teams in the traditional sense—they’re fluid, fast, and often under-supported. That’s exactly where TeamPath can make a difference.

By making the basics of teaming accessible—from quick team rituals to lightweight diagnostics to practical tools for soft skills—you equip all kinds of teams (especially fast-moving ones) to collaborate more effectively, even without long-term development programs. It’s not about one big intervention. It’s about helping every team, in every phase, build habits that work.