The Team Effectiveness And Frustrations Study
The Team Effectiveness & Frustrations Study

The Team Effectiveness & Frustrations Study

Groundbreaking new research finds that while teams are essential for productivity, they are plagued by missed commitments, ignored ideas, and role imbalances that quietly sabotage performance.

Executive Summary

This study of 6,821 leaders and employees across industries reveals that while teams are essential for productivity, they are also riddled with imbalances and blind spots that undermine performance.

  • The Dream Team Myth. Only 35% believe that so-called "dream teams" of high performers consistently outperform average teams. Star power alone isn't enough; teams thrive when diverse roles are balanced.
  • Role Imbalances. Teams are full of doers and decision-makers, but admit they are missing or undervaluing innovators and relationship-builders — the very roles that drive creativity and cohesion.
  • Execution Gaps. Just 23% say their team's commitments are nearly always delivered on time, and one-third report they frequently pick up slack for others.
  • Meeting Failures. Nearly 60% leave meetings without clarity on next steps, and more than half believe eliminating half of their meetings would actually improve productivity.
  • Conflict & Safety. Only 36% say conflict is resolved productively, and just 18% feel completely safe voicing an unpopular opinion — silencing dissent and stifling innovation.
  • Ignored Ideas. An overwhelming 91% say their ideas have been ignored, only to later prove correct — evidence of systemic innovation blindness.
  • The Solo Preference Under Pressure. While two-thirds say teams generally boost productivity, more than half believe working alone is more effective when deadlines loom.
  • Forced Fun Backfires. Nearly half say traditional "forced-fun" team-building activities make them uncomfortable or feel inauthentic.

The conclusion is clear: Teams are indispensable but often underperform because they lack the right role balance. Without strong Directors, Achievers, Stabilizers, Harmonizers, and Trailblazers working together, teams default to inefficiency, mistrust, and missed opportunities.

Study Methodology — Demographics

This research surveyed 6,821 executives, directors, managers, and individual contributors across diverse industries and company sizes during August-September 2025. Respondents represented organizations ranging from small businesses to large enterprises, ensuring a broad and balanced perspective on how teams function in practice. Respondents participated in a 20-item online survey designed to capture both role dynamics and team effectiveness; the instrument required an average of five minutes to complete. By role, the sample included 14.1% executives (C-suite and SVP), 26.3% senior leaders (directors and VPs), 33.3% managers and supervisors, 18.2% individual contributors, and 8.1% other or prefer not to say.

The Dream Team Myth: Only 35% Say High-Performer Teams Consistently Outperform

Key Findings

We asked: "Do 'dream teams' of high performers usually outperform average teams?"

Only 35.4% of respondents said yes — that dream teams consistently outperform. A much larger 59.6% said these teams only sometimes outperform, while 5.1% said they often underperform.

This finding challenges the long-held assumption that stacking a team with top talent automatically produces superior results. In practice, star-heavy groups frequently suffer from duplication, ego clashes, or missing critical roles that keep performance balanced.

Why It Matters

For CEOs and HR leaders, this is a wake-up call: high-performing individuals don't automatically create a high-performing team. Without the right mix of Directors, Doers, Stabilizers, Harmonizers, and Trailblazers, "dream teams" risk falling short of expectations.

Deeper Interpretation

While more than a third of respondents believe high-performer teams consistently deliver, the much larger group saying "sometimes" signals that inconsistency is the norm. In other words, star-stacked teams are just as likely to stumble as they are to shine. That unpredictability is a risk in itself: if organizations can't forecast when their "dream teams" will actually outperform, then relying on talent density alone becomes a gamble rather than a strategy.

Doers and Decision-Makers Dominate Teams — But Innovators and Relationship-Builders Are Missing

Key Findings

We asked two related questions:

Q2. "Which of these roles are clearly represented on your team?"
Respondents pointed most often to Achievers (78.6%) and Directors (67.3%), followed closely by Stabilizers (66.3%) and Harmonizers (62.2%). But fewer than half (42.9%) said their team has a clear Trailblazer.

Q3. "In your organization, which of these roles is most often missing or undervalued?"
More than half (51.5%) said their teams lack Trailblazers, and over four in ten (42.3%) pointed to Harmonizers. By contrast, only 22.7% said Achievers were missing, while about a third flagged Directors (34.0%) and Stabilizers (29.9%).

These paired results reveal a striking imbalance: teams are well stocked with doers and decision-makers, but short on innovators and relationship-builders.

Why It Matters

Execution and decision-making may keep the lights on, but without innovators and relationship-builders, teams risk stagnation and conflict. Trailblazers push boundaries, while Harmonizers keep collaboration healthy. Undervaluing these roles may explain why many teams can deliver results in the short term but fail to sustain creativity and morale over time.

Deeper Interpretation

The contrast between Q2 and Q3 is telling. Most teams report having Directors and Achievers, but many admit they're missing or undervaluing Trailblazers and Harmonizers. This imbalance helps explain why teams often feel reliable but not inspiring: they get things done but rarely break new ground, and they leave relationship tensions unresolved until they fester. The undervaluing of Harmonizers reflects a common blind spot — organizations often fail to appreciate the cost of unresolved conflict until it damages trust and performance.

Broken Promises: Fewer Than 1 in 4 Teams Say Commitments Are Nearly Always Met

Key Findings

We asked: "What percentage of the commitments made in your team meetings are actually delivered on time?"

Only 23.2% of respondents said nearly all of their team's commitments are delivered on time. Almost half (47.5%) said "most but not all" are met, while 27.3% admitted fewer than half of commitments are fulfilled. A small but telling 2.0% reported that almost none of their commitments get delivered as planned.

Why It Matters

For leaders, this highlights a serious execution gap: even when teams agree on actions in meetings, follow-through is far from guaranteed. This erodes trust, slows momentum, and undermines accountability.

Deeper Interpretation

The results suggest that broken promises aren't isolated failures — they're routine. With three-quarters of respondents saying commitments are only "sometimes" or "mostly" delivered, reliability is the exception, not the norm. This makes planning unpredictable and forces teams into a cycle of rework and reminders. In practice, it means many organizations are running on shaky foundations: they may appear aligned in the meeting, but execution lags the moment people walk out the door.

One-Third of Employees Say They Frequently Pick Up Slack for Teammates

Key Findings

We asked: "How often do you feel you're left picking up the slack for teammates who don't deliver?"

Nearly two-thirds of respondents reported at least sometimes carrying the weight for teammates who fail to deliver: 10.1% said "Always," 23.2% "Often," and 29.3% "Sometimes." Only 35.4% said it happens rarely, and just 2.0% said it never happens.

Why It Matters

Frequent slack-picking signals accountability gaps and uneven workloads. For leaders, this not only drains productivity but also breeds resentment, lowers morale, and increases burnout risk for reliable employees.

Deeper Interpretation

That more than a third of employees say they "always" or "often" have to cover for teammates shows that unreliable performance isn't just an occasional hiccup — it's a recurring strain. This creates a vicious cycle: dependable team members carry more weight, their frustration builds, and overall trust in the team declines. When "pulling extra weight" becomes normalized, it quietly undermines both performance and retention.

One-Third of Employees Say Important Information Is Often Withheld on Their Teams

Key Findings

We asked: "How often do you feel important information is withheld or not shared openly on your team?"

More than a third of respondents said information is frequently held back: 5.1% said "Always" and 28.3% said "Often." Another 24.2% said it happens "Sometimes." Only 34.3% said it happens rarely, while just 8.1% said it never happens.

Why It Matters

Withholding information erodes trust, slows execution, and creates silos. For leaders, these numbers show that many employees are working with incomplete data — and that transparency is far from a given inside most teams.

Deeper Interpretation

The fact that a majority of respondents (57.6%) experience information hoarding at least "sometimes" suggests that knowledge gaps are not isolated issues but systemic patterns. When teammates hold back, whether intentionally or unintentionally, collaboration becomes guesswork. Over time, this undermines psychological safety and encourages a "need-to-know" culture where people second-guess whether they're being kept in the loop. For organizations, the cost is lost speed, reduced trust, and missed opportunities.

Recognition Gap: Teams Reward Bold Voices, But Real Success Depends on Doers

Key Findings

We asked two related questions:

Q7. "Which type of teammate tends to get the most recognition and visibility (whether deserved or not)?"
Respondents pointed most often to decision-makers (28.4%) and bold idea people (21.0%). Doers (22.2%), planners (13.6%), and relationship-builders (14.8%) were much less likely to be singled out for praise.

Q8. "Which type of teammate actually contributes most to your team's success — even if they don't always get recognized for it?"
Here, the picture flipped: a clear majority (61.4%) said doers carry the team, followed by relationship-builders (14.5%) and planners (12.0%). Bold idea people (4.8%) and decision-makers (7.2%) — the very roles most likely to be recognized — were seen as the least essential contributors.

Together, these findings reveal a striking mismatch between recognition and real contribution.

Why It Matters

This misalignment shows that recognition often flows to the most visible roles — decision-makers and idea people — even when execution and relationship roles drive success. For leaders, that means critical contributors may feel overlooked and undervalued, fueling disengagement and attrition.

Deeper Interpretation

The sharp gap between visibility and value reveals a troubling truth: teams may be glorifying style over substance. When the "flashy" roles get the spotlight but the doers and organizers shoulder the real burden, resentment builds and motivation erodes. Over time, this skewed recognition system can create a credibility gap, where the very people who sustain team performance feel invisible — a dangerous dynamic for retention and trust.

Nearly 6 in 10 Employees Leave Meetings Without Clear Next Steps

Key Findings

We asked: "How often do you leave a meeting without clarity on next steps?"

A majority of respondents said they leave meetings without clarity at least some of the time. 13.1% said "Frequently (in most meetings)" and 46.5% said "Occasionally (in some meetings)." Another 34.3% said it happens rarely, while just 6.1% said they never leave a meeting unclear.

Why It Matters

If more than half of employees walk away from meetings unsure what to do next, it means time is being wasted and accountability is weakened. Leaders may believe meetings align teams, but employees often leave without actionable direction.

Deeper Interpretation

The results suggest that lack of clarity isn't a rare glitch — it's part of the fabric of how meetings run. With almost 60% experiencing this "directionless exit" frequently or occasionally, teams risk falling into cycles of follow-up emails, repeated discussions, and missed deadlines. In effect, meetings are failing at their core purpose: to drive clarity and action.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

The fact that so many people leave meetings without clarity highlights what happens when key roles aren't present — or aren't valued. Directors provide decisiveness, ensuring meetings end with concrete choices. Stabilizers ensure those choices are documented and turned into action. When either role is missing or underpowered, meetings drift into vague conversations instead of producing commitments.

Most Teams Mishandle Conflict: Only 36% Resolve It Productively

Key Findings

We asked: "When conflict arises on your team, what usually happens?"

Just 36.4% of respondents said their teams resolve conflict quickly and productively. The rest reported less effective outcomes: 29.3% said people avoid raising conflict altogether, 18.2% said it gets ignored, and 16.2% said it escalates into bigger problems.

Why It Matters

Conflict is inevitable on teams — the question is whether it becomes constructive or corrosive. These results show that in nearly two-thirds of cases, conflict is either avoided, brushed aside, or escalates, robbing teams of opportunities to address issues and build trust.

Deeper Interpretation

The data reveals that avoidance dominates. Nearly half of employees say conflict either isn't raised or gets dismissed when it is. That silence can look like "harmony," but in reality it leaves tensions unresolved until they resurface in unproductive ways. Escalation adds another layer of risk, consuming energy and damaging relationships. Together, the numbers suggest that many teams are leaving one of the most powerful tools for growth — constructive conflict — on the table.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

Healthy conflict resolution requires Harmonizers to keep relationships intact and Directors to make firm decisions when disagreements stall. When Harmonizers are undervalued, teams lack the emotional glue to process differences. Without Directors, issues linger without resolution. This explains why most teams in the survey either avoid or mishandle conflict: the roles that transform disagreements into progress are missing or sidelined.

Only 18% of Employees Feel Completely Safe Voicing Unpopular Opinions

Key Findings

We asked: "How safe do you feel speaking up with an unpopular opinion in your team?"

While a majority of respondents (62.8%) said they feel "mostly safe," only 18.1% said they feel "completely safe." On the other end of the spectrum, 14.9% said they are "rarely safe," and 4.3% said they are "never safe" voicing dissent.

Why It Matters

Psychological safety is a cornerstone of effective teamwork. These results show that while many employees feel somewhat safe, very few feel truly secure. Without that full sense of safety, teams risk silencing critical perspectives that could prevent mistakes or spark innovation.

Deeper Interpretation

The large "mostly safe" middle highlights a fragile dynamic: employees may speak up in some situations, but hesitate when the stakes are higher or when dissent could ruffle feathers. That hesitation creates blind spots. A team where only one in five feels entirely safe is a team that is filtering ideas — meaning important warnings or innovative suggestions may never make it to the table.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

For dissenting opinions to surface, teams need Trailblazers willing to challenge assumptions and Harmonizers who protect psychological safety. When Harmonizers are undervalued, people avoid risking conflict. And without empowered Trailblazers, teams lose bold thinking. The data shows many organizations may be over-relying on consensus, leaving their most valuable dissent unspoken.

Nine in Ten Employees Say Their Good Ideas Have Been Ignored — Only to Later Prove Right

Key Findings

We asked: "Have you ever had an idea or innovation ignored by your team that later turned out to be correct?"

A striking 90.9% of respondents said yes. Of these, 37.4% said it happened multiple times, while 53.5% said once or twice. Just 9.1% said it had never happened to them.

Why It Matters

These results highlight a major blind spot in organizations: valuable ideas are being overlooked, dismissed, or stifled. For leaders, it means missed opportunities, slower innovation, and frustrated employees who feel undervalued when their insights are proven right only after being ignored.

Deeper Interpretation

That nearly every employee has seen their valid ideas dismissed suggests that idea suppression is systemic, not incidental. The fact that more than a third say it's happened multiple times points to a culture problem where contributions are filtered by hierarchy, loudness, or bias rather than judged on merit. Over time, this discourages employees from speaking up, ensuring that future innovations never even get voiced.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

This dynamic underscores the importance of Trailblazers, whose role is to bring forward bold ideas, and Harmonizers, who ensure those ideas are heard. Without valuing these roles, organizations default to decision-makers and doers, creating execution-heavy but innovation-poor teams. The cost is clear: ideas that could fuel growth die in silence until hindsight proves their worth.

Half of Employees Say In-Person Meetings Produce the Best Outcomes — But a Quarter See No Difference

Key Findings

We asked: "Which type of meetings produce the best outcomes for your team?"

A majority of respondents (52.5%) said in-person meetings yield the best outcomes. Meanwhile, 27.3% reported that the format makes no difference, 12.1% said hybrid meetings work best, and only 8.1% preferred virtual meetings.

Why It Matters

The findings show a clear preference for in-person meetings — but with a significant minority saying the format doesn't matter. For leaders debating the future of work, this suggests that while face-to-face interaction is valued, many employees see meeting effectiveness as more about what happens in the meeting than where it takes place.

Deeper Interpretation

The "no difference" response from more than a quarter of employees is revealing. It undercuts one of the central arguments for return-to-office mandates: that in-person automatically equals better collaboration. For a large share of employees, the real driver of outcomes isn't physical presence, but clarity of roles, decision-making, and follow-through. The small minority selecting virtual or hybrid shows that while these formats aren't seen as universally superior, they may be underutilized when they could be optimized.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

Meeting outcomes are less about the format and more about whether the right roles show up. Directors ensure decisions, Stabilizers enforce structure, and Harmonizers manage dynamics. Without these roles, even in-person meetings can fail, while with them, virtual or hybrid meetings can succeed. The data reinforces the point: location alone doesn't guarantee effectiveness — role balance does.

More Than Half of Employees Say Cutting Meetings in Half Would Boost Their Productivity

Key Findings

We asked: "If your team eliminated half of its meetings, what would happen to your personal productivity?"

A majority of respondents said productivity would improve: 17.3% said it would improve significantly and 37.8% said it would improve somewhat. Another 25.5% said it would make no difference, while 19.4% said productivity would get worse.

Why It Matters

The fact that most employees see fewer meetings as a productivity boost suggests that meetings may be overused or poorly run. For leaders, this is a red flag that time intended for collaboration is instead undermining focus and output.

Deeper Interpretation

The data reveals that meetings are often perceived as a drag on individual productivity rather than a driver of progress. While one in five fear fewer meetings would hurt performance, the far larger group that anticipates gains shows a trust gap: employees don't believe most meetings add value. This finding reinforces a growing sentiment across workplaces — meetings should be fewer, shorter, and better structured.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

When meetings lack Directors to make decisions and Stabilizers to keep discussions focused, they spiral into time-wasters. The fact that most employees would happily cut half of their meetings reflects a shortage of these roles in action. With stronger role balance, meetings could become engines of clarity and progress instead of productivity drains.

Most Employees Say Cutting Meetings Wouldn't Hurt Team Performance

Key Findings

We asked: "If your team eliminated half of its meetings, what would happen to your team's ability to deliver results?"

Only 30.3% of respondents said performance would get worse. The rest believed outcomes would either stay the same (30.3%) or improve (39.4%: 11.1% significantly, 28.3% somewhat).

This means nearly 7 in 10 employees believe their teams could maintain or even improve results with fewer meetings.

Why It Matters

The data suggests teams may be holding onto far more meetings than they need. For leaders, this signals an opportunity: reducing meeting volume may free up time for deeper work without damaging — and potentially even improving — team performance.

Deeper Interpretation

The finding highlights the inefficiency built into many meeting schedules. Employees don't just see meetings as a personal drain (as in Q14); many believe they could deliver the same — or better — results with fewer of them. This suggests that organizations could safely cut a significant portion of meetings, provided alignment is maintained, and still preserve effectiveness.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

Teams that lack empowered Directors and Stabilizers often use meetings as a crutch to maintain alignment. But when those roles function properly, meetings become shorter and more decisive. This enables teams to cut the number of meetings without fearing that performance will drop.

Nearly Half of Employees Say Forced-Fun Team-Building Makes Them Uncomfortable

Key Findings

We asked: "Traditional 'forced-fun' team-building activities (e.g., icebreakers, office games, etc.) often make me feel uncomfortable or inauthentic."

A combined 48.5% of respondents agreed with the statement (26.3% strongly agree, 22.2% agree). Another 15.2% were neutral, while 36.3% disagreed (24.2% disagree, 12.1% strongly disagree).

Why It Matters

For leaders, these numbers suggest that activities designed to build camaraderie may alienate as many people as they engage. If nearly half of employees find these events uncomfortable or inauthentic, the ROI on such activities is questionable.

Deeper Interpretation

The high level of discomfort reflects a deeper cultural mismatch: while organizations may see games and icebreakers as morale boosters, many employees view them as contrived or even exclusionary. The neutral group (15.2%) adds to the picture — suggesting not enthusiasm but indifference. This indicates that traditional formats are unlikely to inspire the engagement leaders expect, and in many cases, they may do the opposite.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

Forced-fun activities often overlook role diversity. Introverted Achievers and methodical Stabilizers may feel awkward in contrived settings, while Harmonizers thrive in authentic relationship-building moments. By undervaluing the natural ways people contribute, organizations risk creating activities that feel fake, instead of designing interactions that align with and celebrate distinct team roles.

Two-Thirds of Employees Say Teams Boost Their Productivity — But 1 in 10 Say Teams Make Them Less Productive

Key Findings

We asked: "Overall, how does working on a team affect your productivity?"

A majority of respondents reported that teamwork has a positive effect: 35.4% said it significantly increases productivity and 31.3% said it slightly increases it. At the same time, 22.2% said working on a team has no effect, and 11.1% said it decreases their productivity (10.1% slightly, 1.0% significantly).

Why It Matters

The results suggest teams generally enhance output, but the mixed experiences highlight uneven team effectiveness. While many thrive in collaborative environments, a meaningful minority see teams as neutral or even counterproductive — a potential warning sign for leaders about how teams are structured and managed.

Deeper Interpretation

The fact that one-third of employees say teams either don't affect or actively reduce their productivity underscores a critical truth: not all teams are created equal. When teams lack balance — too many decision-makers, not enough doers, or undervalued relationship-builders — collaboration can stall, dilute accountability, or add overhead. The strong positives show the potential of well-structured teams, but the negatives show the cost of teams missing key roles.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

High productivity comes when the five roles are present and valued: Directors driving clarity, Achievers ensuring execution, Stabilizers keeping order, Harmonizers smoothing dynamics, and Trailblazers injecting innovation. Teams missing this balance may tip into bureaucracy, confusion, or conflict — explaining why 1 in 10 employees feel less productive on teams.

More Than Half of Employees Say They're More Effective Working Alone Under Pressure

Key Findings

We asked: "When you really need to get something done or hit a deadline, working alone is usually...?"

A majority of respondents said they are more effective working solo under pressure: 26.3% said 'much more effective' and 30.3% said 'somewhat more effective.' Another 22.2% said it's about equal, while 21.3% said working with a team is more effective (16.2% somewhat, 5.1% much more).

Why It Matters

This finding highlights a deep trust gap in teamwork under pressure. Employees may value collaboration overall (as seen in Q17), but when it really counts, most prefer to rely on themselves rather than their team. For leaders, this signals that teams may not be structured to perform effectively in high-stakes moments.

Deeper Interpretation

The results reveal a paradox: while teams often boost productivity in general, individuals believe that deadlines demand independence. This suggests that teams may be seen as slowing things down when speed and accountability matter most. If employees consistently choose to "go it alone" under pressure, organizations risk undermining both collaboration and resilience in crunch situations.

Connection to the Team Players Framework

This tendency reflects missing or undervalued roles. Directors provide clarity to move quickly, Achievers ensure deadlines are hit, and Stabilizers maintain order under pressure. Without these roles, teams can feel bogged down by too much talk and too little action. As a result, employees retreat into solo work rather than trusting the group to deliver.

Library of All 25 Masterclasses
Library of All 25 Masterclasses

Library of All 25 Masterclasses

The Leader As Coach 6-Week Online Certificate Program [MARCH 7TH] - Leadership IQ
The Leader As Coach 6-Week Online Certificate Program [MARCH 7TH] - Leadership IQ

The Leader As Coach 6-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 8TH]

The AI-Powered Manager: 10x Your Team's Performance [SEPTEMBER 15TH]
The AI-Powered Manager: 10x Your Team's Performance [SEPTEMBER 15TH]

The AI-Powered Manager: 10x Your Team's Performance [SEPTEMBER 15TH]

Managing Employee Performance 4-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 22ND]
Managing Employee Performance 4-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 22ND]

Managing Employee Performance 4-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 22ND]

Library of All 25 Masterclasses
Library of All 25 Masterclasses

Library of All 25 Masterclasses

The Leader As Coach 6-Week Online Certificate Program [MARCH 7TH] - Leadership IQ
The Leader As Coach 6-Week Online Certificate Program [MARCH 7TH] - Leadership IQ

The Leader As Coach 6-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 8TH]

The AI-Powered Manager: 10x Your Team's Performance [SEPTEMBER 15TH]
The AI-Powered Manager: 10x Your Team's Performance [SEPTEMBER 15TH]

The AI-Powered Manager: 10x Your Team's Performance [SEPTEMBER 15TH]

Managing Employee Performance 4-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 22ND]
Managing Employee Performance 4-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 22ND]

Managing Employee Performance 4-Week Online Certificate Program [SEPTEMBER 22ND]

Related Posts

Search About Us Privacy Policy

© 2025 Leadership IQ. All Rights Reserved.