Focusing on individual performance metrics can be counterproductive. As seen in the "super chicken" experiment, top individual performers often succeed by suppressing others. This lowers team collaboration and harms long-term group output, which can be up to 160% more productive than a group of siloed high-achievers.

Related Insights

Leaders often feel they must have all the answers, which stifles team contribution. A better approach is to hire domain experts smarter than you, actively listen to their ideas, and empower them. This creates a culture where everyone learns and the entire company's performance rises.

A "team brag session"—where each member publicly praises a colleague—is counterintuitively more beneficial for the giver. While the recipient feels respected, the act of recognizing others elevates the praiser's own morale and strengthens team bonds.

"Glue employees" are team members with high EQ who proactively help others and prioritize the team's success. They are multipliers but often go unnoticed because they aren't traditional "star" performers. Leaders should actively identify them by asking team members who helps them the most and then reward them accordingly.

Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer reframes productivity as 'ability times motivation times your environment.' This model posits that an individual's output is significantly multiplied by being surrounded by high-caliber talent. The quality of the people in an organization elevates everyone's work, a factor more critical than individual drive alone.

To gauge if your culture supports momentum, observe your top performers during a colleague's celebration. True A-players will be at the front, celebrating. If they're resentful in the back, you have a culture of 'I-centered' individuals that will kill collective momentum.

Human intelligence evolved not just for Machiavellian competition but for collaboration. When groups compete—whether ancient tribes, sports teams, or companies—the one that fosters internal kindness, trust, and information sharing will consistently outperform groups of self-interested individuals.

Rewarding successful outcomes incentivizes employees to choose less risky, less innovative projects they know they can complete. To foster true moonshots, Alphabet's X rewards behaviors like humility and curiosity, trusting that these habits are the leading indicators of long-term breakthroughs.

Solely measuring a team's output fails to capture the health of their collaboration. A more robust assessment includes tracking goal achievement, team psychological safety, role clarity, and the speed of execution. This provides a holistic view of team effectiveness.

AI disproportionately benefits top performers, who use it to amplify their output significantly. This creates a widening skills and productivity gap, leading to workplace tension as "A-players" can increasingly perform tasks previously done by their less-motivated colleagues, which could cause resentment and organizational challenges.

Biologist William Muir's 'super chicken' experiment revealed that groups of top individual performers can end up sabotaging one another, leading to worse outcomes than more cooperative, average teams. In business, this 'too much talent problem' manifests as ego clashes and a breakdown in collaboration, undermining collective success.