Teamwork Is a Scam

Solopreneurs, Managers and Many Creatives Already Knew This

Everyone cheers for teamwork. Nobody wants to pay the tax.

You suffer the meetings, slackers, and conflicts. The business pockets the gains. Going solo work might be your better bet.

---

ATTENTION: I celebrate the 100th post of this newsletter with a rebranding. The Maverick Mapmaker is now The Solo Chief. Different name, same obnoxious attitude!

---

Some people should not join a team.

At a funeral I attended, the daughter-in-law of the deceased scrambled forward to claim her position as a carrier of the coffin, dismissing concerns from her family that it would likely be too heavy for her. “She’s my mom. I will do her the honor!”

Sure enough, when she took a position at the front, she nearly buckled under the strain of the coffin, nearly crashing it headfirst into the floor. The entire family drew a collective breath while the other five pallbearers scrambled to regain balance, each of them carrying an additional load to compensate for the diminished support at the front. For a few dozen meters, the daughter-in-law was obviously not doing much of the carrying.

I think she should not have volunteered for that team.

A few years later, when it was time to carry my mother to her last resting place, I declined to take a position as a pallbearer. I wasn’t sure if I was up to the task, and the last thing I wanted was for the other volunteers to take up the slack. I had decided my talent lay elsewhere.

I prefer to operate alone.

Why Teamwork Is Overrated: The Challenge

You’ve probably had your own experiences with challenging teamwork.

You may have been on an assignment with a “team” of slackers, loafers, and free riders, perhaps in high school or at university. One “team member” carried zero weight, another had practically no talent, and the third was always sick and disappeared from day one. Who was the one carrying the project toward the finish line? Who was the one earning the highest mark that was then collected equally by the entire team? You, of course.

Or you sat on an agile team that did everything democratically and collectively: shared autonomy, shared empowerment, shared backlog, shared cadence, and shared outcomes. Hell, there was even a shared restroom. But do you remember what never got shared, ever? The end-of-year performance reviews. Nor the salaries. Nor the bonuses. And there was definitely no agile team in sight when colleagues competed for a promotion.

Or maybe you assembled a “team” of designers, artists, editors, builders, translators, and other contributors to work on a book, course, or video series. Everyone was “super excited” to be collaborating with you on this product! They all pitched in and did the jobs you hired them for. But guess who was the only one suffering when the product didn’t sell? When the only ones picking it up were three friends and two former colleagues? You, again. All other “team members” got decently paid and moved on to the next job.

Let’s be honest here. Because there’s no way to say this gently.

“Teamwork is a management scam.”

Solopreneurs know this. Single founders know this. Most creators know this. And almost every manager in the world is in on the charade. I know it too because I’ve practiced each of these roles for years. Every time I asked people to work as a team, I did that to benefit the organization, not the individuals.

The Benefits of Teamwork (for the Business)

The science of teams is clear: there are plenty of benefits to working as a team. I’m sure you recognize some.

• Teams Are More Productive - Put competent people together and output usually rises. The presence of others sharpens focus, boosts energy on routine tasks, and discourages slacking. Add clear, high-quality communication, and performance climbs faster than endless email threads ever could. (link)

• Teams Are More Innovative - When people think differently, they challenge assumptions and expand options. Cognitive diversity forces deeper processing instead of lazy consensus. If the team stays curious instead of tribal, solutions get smarter and more creative than solo work ever delivers. (link)

• Teams Are More Daring - Shared responsibility lowers the fear of failure. Teams are more willing to test bold ideas when the risks are distributed. That slight psychological safety bump can turn people’s personal “maybe someday” experiments into actual collective innovation initiatives. (link)

• Teams Are More Effective - Strong teams build a mental map of who knows what. That shared directory of expertise speeds up decision-making. When unique information surfaces instead of staying hidden, decisions improve and complexity becomes manageable. It’s the fundamental principle of the division of labor applied to teams. (link)

• Teams Are More Intelligent - The best teams win because of interaction quality, not because one lone genius dominates. Balanced participation, social sensitivity, and a shared understanding of goals create consistent performance across tasks, instead of occasional flashes of brilliance. System performance is in the interactions, not in the parts. (link)

This all sounds marvelous, of course. But do you recognize the issue here? Can you see the devious trick?

All these pluses of teamwork are benefits for the organization, not for the team member. Nobody I worked with ever said, “I’m so happy I’m more productive for the company while being paid exactly the same.” Not a single person I know has said, “I’m so proud our team invented things the company is taking credit for.” And the last time I heard, “I’m really glad I can’t continue my work while waiting for Susan’s expertise,” was … ehm … never.

Teamwork is awesome. Awesome for business.

The Drawbacks of Teamwork (for the Worker)

The science of teams is also clear on the drawbacks of teams, and there are plenty of those as well. Let’s see if some of these minuses make you wince in recognition:

• People Don’t Contribute Equally - Put individuals in a group and individual effort often drops. When contributions aren’t visible, motivation fades. The highest performers compensate for the slack, resentment grows, and team productivity quietly sinks under the comforting blanket of shared responsibility. (link)

• People Point at Each Other - Shared accountability sounds noble until something fails. Then responsibility dissolves into the air. People assume someone else will fix it, standards slip, and quality erodes while meetings multiply to “clarify ownership.” (link)

• People Get into Fights - Diversity can fuel insight, but unmanaged differences easily morph into relationship conflict. And relationship conflict is toxic. Stress rises, trust falls, collaboration stiffens, and performance drops even if the strategy deck still looks impressive. (link)

• Some People Drain Everyone - A single destructive teammate can slash morale, creativity, and output. Negativity spreads faster than enthusiasm. The emotional tax drains everyone, and suddenly half the team is spending more energy coping than contributing. (link)

• Alignment Eats the Work - Two experts can outperform one, but only if coordination costs stay sane. As teams grow, time disappears into syncing calendars, status updates, and alignment rituals. Eventually, communication overhead outweighs the benefit of extra brains. (link)

I’m probably biased, but in my experience, it’s the team members who usually suffer more from these drawbacks than the organization.

Teammates have to compensate for Sally always being absent, Eric never taking responsibility, Maude and Babette trying to bite each other’s heads off, and Steven being an insufferable pain in the neck. And everyone feels exhausted because they spend half of their time on team-building meetings, strategy meetings, planning meetings, check-in meetings, review meetings, reflection meetings, one-on-one meetings, 360 meetings, brainstorm meetings, and other coordination rituals that are needed just to keep the whole dysfunctional mob aligned.

The benefits of teamwork accrue mostly to the organization, while the drawbacks of teamwork are carried by the team members. And while it’s true that the business must also swallow the bitter pill of these same downsides, at least it enjoys enough upside of teamwork (see above) to enjoy a net positive for teamwork. That doesn’t seem to apply to the workers themselves.

The win-win proposition of teams is a scam. For workers, it’s usually win-lose.

Groups versus Teams: What Monkeys Teach Us

“But wait,” I hear some of you objecting, “What about all the benefits of groups? Humans are social animals. We love being part of something bigger.”

Indeed, we are. And we do. The vast majority of monkey species live in groups. But a group isn’t the same as a team. Good luck finding a team of monkeys building a bamboo hut together.

A group is a collection of people. A team is a group with a shared goal.

A group shares space, time, or simply just a label. They might attend the same conference, hang out with the same friends, sit in the same coffee bar, or share the same set of genes. The goals of individual group members can be similar, but they work independently. If one person disappears, the others may weep or shrug, sometimes carry their coffin, and then they move on, with often nothing more than mild disappointment when the departed left their bank account empty.

A team, however, shares a goal that requires interdependence. They structure their work so that teammates rely on each other’s outputs. There’s coordination, shared accountability, and usually some degree of collective identity. If one person disappears, the whole thing starts to wobble and might even collapse. When the team succeeds, all team members share equally in the outcome.

We can have all the benefits of a group without ever needing a team:

• The Group Feels Safe - In many group settings, people can admit mistakes, ask naïve questions, and challenge assumptions without fear of humiliation. That psychological safety fuels learning, faster problem detection, and steady performance improvements over time. I’ve attended local meetups around the world with total strangers where everyone felt safe and respected. All of them were groups, not teams.

• The Group Feels Supportive - When social groups function well, group members can provide practical and emotional support. That social buffer reduces stress, increases happiness, and makes heavy workloads more sustainable than silent solo struggle ever could. But the same applies here: this social support can come from anyone, not necessarily teammates. Your local Weight Watchers or Alcoholics Anonymous groups may offer more emotional support than any product team ever could.

• The Group Feels Empowering - Working alongside others sharpens communication, conflict resolution, and emotional awareness. Working through differences builds interpersonal muscle. Over time, collaboration turns technical contributors into professionals who can influence, align, and lead. Again, any social group can provide this. It’s the reason why training programs, co-working spaces, and professional associations exist. It has nothing to do with teams.

I enjoy socializing with the people of our local homeowners’ association. But I would never consider joining any of them as a team member to collaborate on a project.

The science bears this out.

Teamwork doesn’t exist among monkey species. In the animal kingdom, unrelated monkeys don’t work toward a shared goal unless there is some form of individual payoff. When unrelated monkeys cooperate, scientists classify it as either “mutualism” (getting an immediate shared reward) or “reciprocal altruism” (getting a delayed reward, essentially “I scratch your back, you scratch mine”). The concept of true biological altruism (where an animal works for a shared goal with zero individual benefit) simply doesn’t survive natural selection in primate evolution. They’re fundamentally incapable of selfless teamwork for an abstract cause. Altruistic reciprocity isn’t a thing. (link)

Humans are monkeys. We’re wired for social groups. We’re not wired for selfless teamwork.

So, whenever someone talks about the benefits of teamwork, it’s always smart to be critical and wonder which of those benefits are actually about teams (with a shared goal) and which are just the common benefits of groups (that don’t have a shared goal at all).

The Team Tax: Who Pays for Coordination?

Organizations have every reason to want people to work in teams. And employees have many reasons to socialize in groups while still working alone. The benefits of teamwork accrue mostly to the business, while the pain, stress, and waste of time are mostly suffered by teammates. It’s no surprise that everyone recognizes the sentiment of getting much more done when people are working on their own rather than on a team. My happiest days are those when I have an empty calendar and my only conversations are with my spouse, friends, customers, and the local barista.

Am I suggesting that everyone should resist teamwork? No. But what I am suggesting is that a business should compensate people for the sacrifices they make toward teamwork. For example, a professional earning $75K a year as a lone worker should perhaps earn $150K when expected to work on a team. But that’s usually not what happens, right? Companies move their employees on and off teams as if it doesn’t make a difference to anyone. But it does.

As a professional working on teams, you swing between two extremes: either you waste time on conflict, slackers, and bad apples or you spend significant time on team building, agile rituals, and communication overhead to prevent the conflict, slackers, and bad apples. Either way, you’re paying a tax. The team tax.

Teamwork comes with a tax, and someone should pay the tax.

If you’re a Solo Chief, you’ve already done this math—maybe at 2am, staring at a ceiling, wondering whether the meeting-free calendar and true autonomy you’ve gained is freedom or failure.

---

I’m a founder, intrapreneur, and former CIO rethinking governance for the one-person business, navigating sole accountability in the age of intelligent machines—informed by plenty of scar tissue. All posts are free, always. Paying supporters keep it that way (and get a full-color PDF of my book Human Robot Agent plus other monthly extras as a thank-you)—for just one café latte per month.

---

All monkeys know this. The concept of “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” applies universally across all species. Reciprocal altruism is the currency of primates. Everyone with a proposal for collaboration must be able to answer the question, “What’s in it for me?”

In the case of teamwork, the argument “you will enjoy the social bonding of the team” isn’t a valid sales pitch. It’s a really bad value proposition. A professional doesn’t need the stress of teamwork to enjoy the benefits of being a social creature. They might as well go to the local bar. That’s what monkeys do and what social groups are for: all the benefits without the hassle of teamwork.

Managers need a better pitch for teamwork, or else it’s just a scam.

The Agile Teamwork Ideal—and Its Limits

Ever since the emergence of the earliest agile methods and frameworks, the value of teamwork has never been in any doubt. Never debated. It was just obvious.

Preferring to do things alone and refusing to pay the team tax was by many in the community almost seen as heresy. You can’t claim to be agile if you’re doing everything all by yourself, they’d say. “Individuals and interactions” is the first rule of the manifesto! It’s hard to carry a coffin on just one pair of shoulders.

And so we put up with all the endless meetings. We wrote books full of practices to make teamwork manageable. We dutifully nodded with empathy and understanding when Charles had a quarrel with Bill. When all blame got diverted to Chet. And when Raymond was sick (again). And when anyone critically asked, “How does all this overhead benefit me?” we gave them the evil eye and a lecture on agility and altruism.

However, forgive me if I’m mistaken, but “individuals and interactions” doesn’t sound to me as being the same as “team.” I have dozens of interactions with other individuals each day. And yet, I’m not on any team. I collaborate with other Substack writers, but we don’t form a team. I have meetings with readers and clients, but we don’t form a team. I happily advise the M3K brand, but I’m not part of their team. I interact with my fellow participants of ScaleUpNation’s board program, but it’s a fine example of a group, not a team.

I’m all for group interaction. I’m not a big fan of teams.

I’d rather do without the drama.

Why I Prefer Working Alone

You may have guessed that I’m more than a little biased. As a staunch introvert, autistic creator, and solo entrepreneur, I have always preferred sole accountability.

I said no several times when someone suggested to co-write a book. I usually declined when they offered to co-facilitate a workshop. I looked aghast and said, “hell-fucking-no” when a speaker proposed to share the stage with me during a keynote. I do my thing and you do yours (happy to interact, but we don’t share one goal). I don’t even cook as a team. You all stay out of my kitchen, and we socialize when I bring in the dishes.

That’s just me. It’s how I’m wired. I don’t want to pay the team tax.

Your mileage may vary.

I prefer going solo, but I fully understand that many products require teamwork. Many innovations wouldn’t fly without people collaborating and chipping in toward a shared goal. There’s nothing wrong with people joining teams. I’m glad that many of you do! But if they want me to join a team, I would ask, “What’s the win-win? What’s in it for me? How is this great not only for the business but also for my career, reputation, or income? How will you compensate me for paying the team tax?”

If the best answer is, “You’ll be on a great team,” I consider it a scam.

Many creatives, solopreneurs, and lone managers figured this out long before me. They do much better work alone. They’re the only ones responsible for their future. They are the Solo Chiefs of their own work-lives. They are the CXO of Themselves. And in the age of AI, with digital assistants replacing many human teammates, there will be more Solo Chiefs than ever. ChatGPT doesn’t ask for a team-building exercise, Gemini doesn’t punch below its weight, and Claude is never on vacation. One human orchestrating a bunch of machines is the teamwork of the future.

The Solo Chief Challenge

There’s vulnerability in going solo. You may have a social group, but the accountability is all yours. You’re the single wringable neck. If you don’t do it well, nobody will save your ass. ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude will just look the other way.

So you’d better make it count.

When my mother passed away, I didn’t carry her coffin. I didn’t send the cards. And I didn’t arrange the flowers. My brother, sister, and dad didn’t form a team. We simply divided the responsibilities.

I interviewed family members for their memories of mom and then I sat down all by myself to turn that into one story. The story of our mother. I gave the best eulogy our family had ever heard. It was funny, artistic, emotional. Perfect. It was by me for everyone. That was my contribution to the ceremony and the social gathering, and the family still fondly remembers it even years later.

I could not have done that as a team.

The Solo Chief doesn’t carry coffins. The Solo Chief writes the eulogies.

Jurgen.

P.S. What’s the team tax you’ve been paying—and is anyone compensating you for it?

---

Does someone you know need this message? Let them know it’s okay to go solo!

---