A surprisingly rich and diverse body of scholarship critiques the concept of teams as a cultural, organizational, and psychological construct.

While “teamwork” is almost universally valorized in modern discourse, a number of influential thinkers across sociology, management studies, philosophy, and psychology have questioned its deeper assumptions — about power, conformity, individuality, and even moral responsibility.

Below is a structured overview of major critiques of teams and the thinkers associated with them.

---

I. The Ideological Critique — Teams as Managerial Control

Key idea:
Teams are often presented as democratic and collaborative, but in practice they function as tools of soft domination — decentralizing responsibility while intensifying surveillance and self-discipline.

Thinker / Work	Core Argument	Key Texts
Michel Foucault	Teams are instruments of disciplinary power that internalize surveillance and normalize control through peer accountability rather than overt hierarchy.	Discipline and Punish (1977); The Birth of Biopolitics (1979).
Nikolas Rose	The modern “team” is a neoliberal technology of governance — producing self-regulating workers who police each other’s attitudes under the guise of collaboration.	Governing the Soul (1989).
Gilles Deleuze	In the “societies of control,” individuals are constantly evaluated within fluid “modulations” like project teams; control becomes continuous, invisible, and internalized.	“Postscript on the Societies of Control” (1990).
Boltanski & Chiapello	The “new spirit of capitalism” celebrates teamwork, flexibility, and creativity — but only as a way to extract more value through emotional and cognitive labor.	The New Spirit of Capitalism (1999).
Barbara Ehrenreich	Corporate “team spirit” rhetoric masks structural inequality and demands emotional submission to management goals.	Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America & the World (2009).

Interpretation:
In this view, the team is not a neutral or benevolent structure — it’s a moral technology that translates organizational control into the language of cooperation and enthusiasm.

---

II. The Psychological Critique — Teams as Environments of Conformity and Groupthink

Key idea:
Teams can suppress critical thinking, creativity, and moral courage by creating pressures for conformity and emotional harmony.

Thinker / Work	Core Argument	Key Texts
Irving Janis	Introduced the concept of groupthink — cohesive groups strive for unanimity at the expense of reality testing and ethical judgment.	Victims of Groupthink (1972).
Wilfred Bion	In group dynamics, unconscious emotional currents (dependency, fight–flight, pairing) often override rational goals.	Experiences in Groups (1961).
C. G. Jung	The “collective” can easily absorb the individual ego; group identification risks regression to primitive psychic states.	The Undiscovered Self (1957).
Erich Fromm	Warned that belonging and conformity in groups often substitute for authentic freedom and moral autonomy.	Escape from Freedom (1941).
Hannah Arendt	Bureaucratic or team-based obedience can enable moral evasion — no one feels personally responsible.	Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963).

Interpretation:
The psychological critique argues that teams are emotionally contagious systems — encouraging dependency, moral diffusion, and suppression of dissent in the name of harmony.

---

III. The Organizational Critique — Teams as Instruments of Labor Intensification

Key idea:
In neoliberal economies, “teamwork” rebrands hierarchical control as participatory engagement, while actually increasing work intensity and insecurity.

Thinker / Work	Core Argument	Key Texts
Richard Sennett	Team-based “flexible capitalism” destroys craftsmanship, continuity, and moral coherence in work life.	The Corrosion of Character (1998).
Luc Boltanski & Ève Chiapello	The new capitalism co-opts the 1960s critique of bureaucracy — replacing rigid hierarchies with networked teams that exploit emotional flexibility.	The New Spirit of Capitalism (1999).
David Graeber	Many “team-based” corporate jobs are bullshit jobs — simulations of productivity whose main function is maintaining hierarchy.	Bullshit Jobs (2018).
Shoshana Zuboff	In “surveillance capitalism,” teams become data-generating networks — sites where behavior is monitored and monetized.	The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019).

💬 Interpretation:
Teamwork rhetoric legitimizes overwork and erodes solidarity by turning social cooperation into an individualized performance of enthusiasm and loyalty.

---

IV. The Ethical & Existential Critique — Teams vs. Authentic Individuality

Key idea:
Team culture can replace moral reflection and individuality with procedural belonging — what Heidegger might call inauthentic being-with.

Thinker / Work	Core Argument	Key Texts
Martin Heidegger	“The They” (das Man) — individuals lose authenticity by conforming to collective norms.	Being and Time (1927).
Albert Camus	True rebellion requires solitary moral reflection; team consensus often neutralizes conscience.	The Rebel (1951).
Simone Weil	Collective enthusiasm (even in noble causes) can become idolatry — obedience replaces truth.	The Need for Roots (1949).

Interpretation:
These thinkers remind us that moral courage often requires the ability to stand apart from the group — not merge entirely into it.

---

V. Contemporary Critical Perspectives

In recent decades, sociologists and feminist scholars have deepened the critique:

• Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) – Early “teamwork” often reproduces gendered and racial hierarchies under the guise of equality.

• Sarah Ahmed (2012) – The “happy team” culture in institutions demands emotional compliance from marginalized people. (On Being Included)

• Melissa Gregg (2018) – Counterproductive: productivity culture turns collaboration into self-surveillance.

• Bruno Latour (2005) – Actor–Network Theory reframes “teams” as networks of human and non-human actors where agency is distributed, complicating the myth of unified cooperation.

---

VI. In Summary

The modern team is both a social ideal and a disciplinary mechanism.
It promises democracy but often produces conformity, exploitation, and moral diffusion.

Across traditions — psychoanalytic, existential, sociological, and critical — thinkers have warned that teams:

1. Mask hierarchy through rhetoric of equality.

2. Convert solidarity into surveillance.

3. Erase individual moral agency.

4. Replace craft and meaning with performative enthusiasm.

---

Representative Reading List

1. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish.

2. Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink.

3. Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in Groups.

4. Sennett, R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character.

5. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (1999). The New Spirit of Capitalism.

6. Rose, N. (1989). Governing the Soul.

7. Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem.

8. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom.

9. Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included.

10. Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit Jobs.

---

In short:
Yes, many thinkers of note have critiqued “teams” — not for being inherently bad, but for disguising power, eroding individuality, and reproducing the very hierarchies they claim to dismantle.
The critical insight is that teamwork without justice becomes another word for obedience with a smile.