Illustration of a complex jigsaw puzzle representing the challenges and rewards of teamwork in diverse teams.

Teamwork Troubles? The Surprising Truth About Self-Selected Groups

Nico Varela in Mind & Education August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Why choosing your own teammates might not be the best strategy for success – and what you can do about it."

Teamwork is the backbone of countless endeavors, from academic projects to corporate strategies. The conventional wisdom suggests that allowing individuals to choose their teammates fosters stronger connections, increased motivation, and ultimately, better outcomes. After all, who wouldn't prefer working alongside friends or like-minded colleagues?

However, a recent study throws a wrench into this seemingly foolproof plan. Researchers Julius Düker and Alexander Rieber from Ulm University investigated the impact of self-selected versus randomly assigned groups in a classroom setting. Their findings challenge the notion that self-selection automatically leads to superior performance.

The results, published in a working paper, reveal a fascinating paradox: while students in self-selected groups reported higher satisfaction and knowledge acquisition, their actual performance on group assignments lagged behind that of randomly assigned teams. This raises a critical question: why does choosing our own teammates sometimes backfire, and what can we do to create more effective collaborations?

The Self-Selection Paradox: Why Choosing Friends Can Hinder Performance

Illustration of a complex jigsaw puzzle representing the challenges and rewards of teamwork in diverse teams.

Düker and Rieber's experiment involved students in a compulsory undergraduate data analysis course. Over two consecutive semesters, students were either allowed to self-select their groups or were randomly assigned to teams of three. The researchers then meticulously tracked group performance on data science projects, individual learning through final exams, and student satisfaction via surveys.

The results painted a clear picture: self-selected groups consistently underperformed on group projects compared to their randomly assigned counterparts. This finding challenges the assumption that familiarity and camaraderie automatically translate into better teamwork.

Lower Performance: Self-selected groups scored significantly lower on group assignments.
Higher Satisfaction: Students in self-selected groups reported greater satisfaction and a more positive perception of their group's effectiveness.
Increased Learning: Individuals in self-selected groups demonstrated higher knowledge acquisition, as measured by final exam scores.

So, what's behind this seemingly contradictory outcome? The researchers delved deeper, examining factors such as group composition and individual contributions to understand the underlying mechanisms at play.

Rethinking Team Formation: Strategies for Success

The research by Düker and Rieber offers valuable insights for anyone involved in forming or managing teams. While self-selection can boost satisfaction and create a more positive learning environment, it's crucial to be aware of its potential drawbacks on overall performance. By understanding the dynamics at play and implementing strategies to mitigate the risks of homogeneity, we can unlock the true potential of collaborative work.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What's the main issue with self-selected teams according to recent research?

While self-selected teams often report higher satisfaction and knowledge acquisition, the research conducted by Julius Düker and Alexander Rieber indicates they frequently underperform compared to randomly assigned groups, especially on group assignments. This presents a paradox where increased satisfaction doesn't necessarily translate to better overall performance. Further research is needed to examine other factors that influence team performance in self-selected environments, such as leadership styles or task complexity, to develop strategies for optimizing outcomes.

How did Julius Düker and Alexander Rieber study the effects of self-selected teams versus randomly assigned teams?

Julius Düker and Alexander Rieber conducted their study in a compulsory undergraduate data analysis course. They compared student performance in self-selected groups against those in randomly assigned groups over two semesters. They tracked group performance on data science projects, individual learning through final exams, and student satisfaction through surveys. This multifaceted approach allowed them to assess not only the performance aspect but also the attitudinal and knowledge-based outcomes associated with different team formation methods.

What were the key differences observed between self-selected and randomly assigned teams in the Ulm University study?

The Ulm University study by Düker and Rieber revealed that self-selected groups scored lower on group assignments despite reporting higher satisfaction and increased individual learning, as measured by final exam scores. Randomly assigned groups, while potentially lacking the initial camaraderie of self-selected teams, outperformed them in collaborative project work. This highlights a trade-off between team member satisfaction and project outcomes, indicating the importance of other factors such as diverse skill sets and perspectives.

Why might choosing friends or like-minded colleagues for teamwork lead to underperformance, as suggested by the self-selection paradox?

The self-selection paradox, as evidenced by Düker and Rieber's work, suggests that while choosing friends or like-minded colleagues can boost satisfaction and knowledge acquisition, it might also lead to a lack of diverse perspectives and skill sets within the group. This homogeneity can hinder problem-solving and innovation, ultimately affecting group performance. The absence of constructive conflict and differing viewpoints can limit a team's ability to explore alternative solutions and challenge assumptions, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. This highlights the importance of actively seeking diverse perspectives in team formation, even if it means stepping outside of one's immediate social circle.

Beyond simply random assignment, what strategies can be implemented to create high-performing teams while addressing the potential drawbacks of self-selection?

To mitigate the drawbacks of self-selection while fostering high-performing teams, organizations can implement strategies such as skill-based team formation, where members are selected based on their complementary abilities and expertise. Promoting diversity in team composition, including differences in background, experience, and perspectives, can also enhance problem-solving and innovation. Additionally, organizations can provide training in conflict resolution and communication skills to help team members navigate differences effectively and leverage diverse viewpoints. Integrating structured processes for decision-making and project management can further ensure that all voices are heard and that the team stays focused on achieving its goals. This approach acknowledges the potential benefits of self-selection while proactively addressing its limitations, leading to more effective and collaborative teamwork.