Why Most Team Building Efforts Fail — And What Actually Works

Many companies invest in flashy team-building events: bowling nights, ropes courses, even cultural immersion experiences. One sales executive shared how his team was flown to London, stayed in a luxury hotel, and learned the haka—New Zealand’s traditional war dance—from Maori tribe members. While the event aimed to promote team spirit, the result was embarrassment and cynicism. The division was sold off just months later.

Even Mars Inc., a company known for its thoughtful people practices, once followed these trends. We once paid thousands to have an orchestra guide senior leaders in “working together in harmony.” It was symbolic—and completely ineffective. The group left with no new tools or motivation to actually collaborate.

Why Feel-Good Events Aren’t Enough

There’s no denying that shared experiences can build short-term emotional bonds. But in high-performance, results-driven environments, these bonds quickly dissolve under pressure. People return to their daily roles, and nothing truly changes.

In 2011, Mars decided to get serious about collaboration. We launched a global research initiative to understand what actually drives effective teamwork—and what doesn’t. The findings surprised us.

The Real Starting Point of Collaboration: Individual Motivation

Our study of 125 teams revealed that successful collaboration doesn’t begin with relationships or trust. It begins with clearly defined goals and personal motivation.

Using interviews and surveys, we asked team members about their objectives, concerns, and clarity around team priorities. Overwhelmingly, they reported strong ownership over their own work—but far less connection to shared goals.

From our 360-degree leadership data, two traits consistently stood out at Mars: action orientation and results focus. Our people were doers—highly capable, individually driven, and rewarded for solo performance. Collaboration, by contrast, was abstract, unstructured, and lacked recognition. It felt messy. Worse, it seemed to dilute accountability.

The Turning Point: Building a Collaboration Framework

We realized that the lack of collaboration wasn’t due to laziness or lack of trust. It was the result of well-intentioned systems that praised individual achievement. Collaboration had to be made concrete and compelling.

We developed a framework anchored by two core questions:

1. Why is collaboration essential to achieving business results?
2. Which specific tasks or projects require collaboration to succeed?

These questions pushed teams beyond vague aspirations and into meaningful discussions.

Testing the Framework in the Real World

In 2012, we piloted our new approach with the leadership team at Mars Petcare China. On day one, we debated the team’s collective purpose. It wasn’t easy—many were skeptical. But after hours of dialogue, they aligned around a purpose: driving people development and deploying their new strategy.

Day two focused on execution. What work actually required collaboration? Who needed to work together, and how would they hold one another accountable? They even built these commitments into their individual performance goals. The group then co-created a list of shared behaviors and accountability practices.

Interestingly, when I suggested we explore personality types like Myers-Briggs, they brushed it off after 15 minutes and redirected back to tasks and accountability. That moment made it clear: for high performers, results—not relationships—were the entry point to true collaboration.

The Outcome: A 33% Growth Surge

A year later, I checked in with the general manager of Mars Petcare China. Growth was up 33%, and their top dog food brand surged 60%. It was the first time in eight years they had met their corporate targets.

When I asked how much the collaboration work contributed, his answer was simple: “Massively.” The team’s clarity of purpose and shared accountability changed the way they worked together—transforming relationships from the inside out.

Embedding the Framework Company-Wide

Later that year, we embedded our tested framework into a single management development program. Within two years, it spread organically—shared and adopted across global divisions. It was a clear signal: when collaboration aligns with business value and individual goals, it sticks.

‍