Summary

  • High intellect ≠ high performance – Dr Meredith Belbin's extensive research revealed that teams of highly capable individuals can still underperform if they lack effective collaboration. This phenomenon is called Apollo Syndrome – the teams were known as Apollo Teams.
  • Ego-driven debates – intellectual team members prioritised showing their cleverness over achieving consensus, which undermined cohesion.
  • Lack of coherence and trust – without a shared strategy, team members tended to work in silos, with blame-shifting eroding psychological safety.
  • Overcompensation risks – attempts to avoid conflict can create ambiguity, indecision, and unresolved issues.

What is Apollo syndrome/an Apollo team?

Apollo syndrome is a phenomenon whereby teams (called Apollo teams) composed of intelligent and capable individuals paradoxically perform poorly owing to excessive debate, lack of cohesion, and one upmanship.

The paradox of 'clever' teams

You take all your brightest people and put them together to compete as a team? That's the winning team, right?

Wrong.

Dr Meredith Belbin’s research in the 1970s revealed a striking paradox: teams composed of highly intelligent and capable individuals often performed poorly in business simulation exercises.

Despite the talent and qualifications of the team members, these Apollo teams consistently struggled to deliver results.

This discovery highlighted a critical lesson: individual brilliance does not automatically translate into team effectiveness.

Meredith Belbin Partner Belbin

Apollo Team Syndrome

The researchers called the phenomenon Apollo Team Syndrome after the first of these teams who, despite a promising membership with strong analytical skills and impressive academic credentials, foundered at every turn, resulting in poor team performance.

But why?

Why didn’t having lots of high-performers translate into a high-performing team?

Why did the lack of coherent teamwork “nullify the gains of individual effort or brilliance”, as Dr Belbin so eloquently put it?

To answer that question, let’s delve a little deeper into what was happening inside these Apollo teams.

Our research and insights straight to your inbox

Join over 25,000 people who receive our research and insights once a week. Unsubscribe any time.

The problem with Apollo teams

The Apollo teams shared a number of ‘destructive tendencies’.

  • Ego-driven debates – team discussions often became contests of intellect rather than problem-solving. Members competed to prove they were the cleverest, rather than reaching consensus. No one would give in, so debates just caused rifts and divisions.

  • Lack of cohesion – the absence of a coherent shared strategy led to fragmented work and competing priorities. Individuals worked in silos, resulting in rivalry, omissions and one upmanship. This drained resources, reducing efficiency and making the teams difficult to manage.

  • Recriminations eroded trust – when things went wrong, Apollo teams tended to assign blame to one another rather than collaborate on solutions, undermining psychological safety.

  • Overcompensation – in an effort to reduce conflict, some teams avoided discussion altogether, leaving decisions unresolved and objectives unclear.

Traditional education can set us up to fail at teamwork

It might be said that the members of these teams tended to have a narrow view of what it meant to be ‘clever’.

They defined themselves primarily by their intellect – placing too much value on intelligence, both their own and that of others – while undervaluing other contributions, which were often neglected within the team.

By choosing colleagues who were like-minded and whom they admired, they ended up with team members they didn’t really need – people who would compete in the same arena, rather than complement one another. This created role confusion and a loss of collective identity within the team.

In many cases, traditional education contributes to this problem. It encourages us to value academic credentials and intellectual achievement – but provides little preparation for effective teamwork. As Dr Belbin writes in Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail:

"Those who at school are ‘top of the class’, or who have it within their reach, are continually being judged in terms of their scholastic pre-eminence. To come second is to fail. Beating the next person is the name of the game [...] In other words, overconcentration on coming top of the class provides an unconscious training in anti-teamwork."

- Dr Meredith Belbin

Cracking Apollo syndrome: choosing leaders, choosing teams

Apollo team members tended to see themselves as skilled critical thinkers, capable of devising solutions to problems.

Because of this, they often perceived little difference between their own role and that of the team leader. This blurred distinction frequently led to competition for influence, with those unable to assume a leadership role sometimes disrupting the group.

However, some Apollo teams did achieve relative success. This tended to occur when there were fewer dominant members, allowing a more sceptical leadership style to emerge. In these cases, leaders were able to guide discussions towards clear outcomes – setting objectives and priorities, and holding firm without competing for authority.

Another factor influencing success, according to Dr Belbin, was the way teams were composed. When leaders had the freedom to select team members according to their own criteria – rather than being assigned a team – individuals often took greater collective responsibility. Leaders tended to choose people with complementary skills, fostering interdependence and helping to build trust within the team.

Recognising diverse talents

Many teams and organisations might talk the talk about celebrating diversity, but how often is cognitive diversity really understood as a precursor to high performance?

For the Apollo teams, individual endeavour – or even engagement – was not enough.

Their failure to value anything other than academic prowess and critical thinking led to their downfall.

“What Is Needed Is Not Well Balanced Individuals, But Individuals Who Balance Well With Each Other.” (1)

Recognising diverse skills and abilities doesn’t mean simply paying lip service, but challenging our own assumptions as to what constitutes a valuable contribution. Seeking out cognitive diversity in our teams fosters healthy interdependence where homogeneity might result in internal competition.

How Belbin Team Roles can help

The Belbin Team Roles framework offers a practical approach to addressing Apollo Team Syndrome. By understanding team members’ behavioural strengths and preferences, teams can:

  • Identify role imbalances – ensure critical roles are present and avoid overrepresentation of similar strengths.
  • Encourage complementary collaboration – mix roles to balance idea generation, decision-making, co-ordination and implementation.
  • Improve decision-making – structured roles help the team channel intellect productively, turning potential conflicts into constructive discussions.
  • Support team cohesion – clear role responsibilities build trust, reduce ego-driven conflicts, and promote psychological safety.

Request a Demo

Let's explore how Belbin can help your teams work better together. Fill in your details and we'll arrange an online meeting to show you around the Belbin platform.