This blog post is one in a series on the business of sports, curated by Hult professor Tom Sullivan and leading up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Hult is an emerging educational leader on the topic with the launch of our Sports MBA, in partnership with the renowned Barça Innovation Hub. The series highlights the intersection of business and the global sports industry and what they can learn from each other.

 

Every two years, the Ryder Cup reminds golf fans around the world that team sport is different from individual competition. In the most recent contest, Europe once again prevailed on U.S. soil, extending a pattern that has seen them win 11 of the last 15 matches since 1985. Their victory was built on dominating the team formats (foursomes and four-balls), while the United States rebounded in the Sunday singles matches but still fell short overall. 

The paradox is striking. The 2025 U.S. team entered the competition with seven of the top-ten-ranked players in the world, making it the second-highest ranked Ryder Cup team in history. On paper, they were overwhelming favorites. Still, Europe once again walked away with the Cup.  

The outcome raises a question that is important for both sports teams and business organizations. Why does a team with a “weaker” (less highly ranked) roster so often prevail, even dominating when the format favors team-based play?  

Before this year’s Ryder Cup, I sat down for a discussion with two men who have lived the competition from inside the ropes: Thomas Levet, a six-time European Tour winner and member of the 2004 European team; and Ken Green, a five-time PGA Tour champion and member of the 1989 U.S. team. Levet and Green offered perspectives on this question and others, and their reflections echoed a growing body of research in organizational psychology known as the “too much talent” effect—a phenomenon that also has something to teach business. 

“The Too Much Talent Effect” 

Scholars studying performance in sports and organizations have found that piling stars on the roster does not guarantee success. A landmark 2014 study by Roderick Swaab and colleagues analyzed international soccer and basketball teams. They discovered a curvilinear pattern. Adding talent improves performance… until it doesn’t. Beyond a certain threshold, additional stars tend to drag down rather than improve results. 

How can this be? The authors contend that the reason is that, all too often, coordination problems and status conflicts are amplified as star power is increased. Simply put, if everyone wants to lead, then no one follows. 

This phenomenon has also been replicated in business. A 2016 study by Boris Groysberg and colleagues of the most highly ranked Wall Street analysts showed that individual brilliance is less portable than many assume and that team effects are required for peak performance. Star analysts who switched firms often saw their performance drop because their success had been amplified by the teams, data systems, and institutional networks around them. Removed from that ecosystem, their star power dimmed. 

The Ryder Cup provides a similar reminder. Stars shine brightest when their roles are embedded in a functioning constellation. 

Levet: Learning to Lead and to Follow 

Thomas Levet described the historic success of Europeans in the Ryder Cup through this lens. “In Europe we understand a lot better who is the leader and who is the follower,” he explained. “We all go in one direction.” His words echo Swaab’s findings that when hierarchy is clear, performance thrives. When status competition takes over, the collective suffers. 

Levet’s perspective is rooted in his own experience as a French junior golfer. From a young age, he competed in formats that mirrored Ryder Cup play. “When I was a kid, we played six-man club championships every year,” he recalled. “Three foursomes in the morning, six singles in the afternoon. By the time I reached the Ryder Cup, I had already played maybe 14 championships with that kind of format.” 

That exposure developed instincts not just for competition, but for when to take charge and when to defer. Playing alongside former Masters champion José María Olazábal in the Seve Trophy, Levet said simply, “You just listen. You don’t do. You follow his lead.” 

The European system thus produces players who are comfortable with fluid roles. They know how to be the star when called upon, but also how to support a teammate when the situation demands it. Captains and veterans reinforce this culture. Veteran players became models of authority, and younger players learned to embrace supporting roles until it was their turn. 

Crucially, European captains also recognize which personalities need leadership to thrive. As Levet noted, certain players “have to be in the skin of a leader. If you put them as a follower, they’re not feeling that good and they’re not playing that good either.” This kind of nuanced role management, part psychology and part strategy, has been central to Europe’s success. When cohesion takes hold, it translates into poise, focus, and conviction under pressure. Those intangibles turn close matches into victories. 

Green: When Ego Takes Over 

Ken Green agreed that culture matters but offered a sharper critique of the U.S. approach. Green emphasized that historically, on the U.S. side, ego has gotten in the way of team synergy. This is precisely what research on status conflict has shown. When multiple stars vie for leadership, coordination costs rise and performance falls. 

“I honestly believe it’s the Tiger Woods–Phil Mickelson effect,” he said. “Those two egos clashed so bad, and everyone was trying to follow along without causing friction. There’s nothing worse than two male egos colliding and then having ten other guys trying to fit their way in.” 

Green’s point was not about bad intentions. Neither Woods nor Mickelson set out to derail the team. However, their stature created a gravitational pull that left others unsure how to act. The result was tension and hesitancy rather than cohesion. 

In other words, the U.S. team of that era was not short of talent. It was short of clarity, a dynamic easily replicated on any team of all-stars. U.S. players were raised to compete as individuals and struggled to recalibrate for three days of collective sacrifice in the presence of other dominant stars. As Green put it, “It goes back to the male ego. It’s a tough thing to crack when you get all these studs together.” 

Perhaps Green’s most pointed critique was aimed at this year’s squad. He noted that U.S. players insisted on being paid for their Ryder Cup participation, while the Europeans competed without pay. For Green, this difference speaks volumes. To him, it signifies an individualistic streak that has long plagued the U.S. side. 

Beyond Golf: Lessons for Teams 

What emerges from both Levet and Green is a lesson that extends well beyond golf. Whether in corporate project groups, research labs, or national sports teams, assembling a roster of stars is not enough. The team must also build norms that allow members to adapt fluidly. Psychological safety, shared goals, and an appreciation of complementary contributions all matter as much as raw ability. Leaders must be empowered to lead, and followers must take pride in following. 

The Ryder Cup, in this sense, is not only a golf competition but also a live experiment in organizational behavior. It provides a vivid stage for the insight that more talent can be less if not harnessed in the right ways. Thomas Levet highlights Europe’s culture of adaptability and cohesion that yields poise, focus, and conviction. Ken Green warns of the disruptive impact of ego and self-interest, whether in the clash of superstar personalities or in the demand to be paid. 

Both Levet and Green point to the truth that in team endeavors, winning requires more than talent. It requires the humility to follow, the wisdom to coordinate, and the trust to let others lead when the moment demands. In golf, as in organizations, the real stars are the teams that understand this. 

Interested in a career in sports business? Then check out Hult’s Sports MBA program. 

References 

  • Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0734 
  • Groysberg, B., Lee, L.-E., & Nanda, A. (2008). Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers’ performance. Management Science, 54(7), 1213–1230. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0809 
  • Swaab, R. I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E. M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1581–1591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614537280 

 

Research Sidebar  

What Does the Research Say? 

More star power does not automatically equal more success. At a certain point, additional talent creates friction rather than advantage. Winning teams require role clarity, disciplined execution, and humility at the top. Talent must be harnessed, not merely assembled. 

Drivers of Underperformance 

  • Coordination Costs - Too many leaders and not enough followers complicate execution, diluting focus and impairing results. 
  • Status Conflicts - High performers compete for recognition instead of aligning behind shared goals. 
  • Cultural Mismatch - Stars often thrive in environments tailored to them. Remove the support system, and results suffer. 

Evidence from Practice 

  • Sports - Overloaded soccer and basketball teams often stumble despite superior rosters (Swaab et al., 2014). 
  • Business – “Star” analysts on Wall Street underperformed after switching firms without their old teams and infrastructure (Groysberg et al., 2008). 
  • Organizations - Groups plagued by status conflict show lower cohesion and weaker results (Bendersky & Hays, 2012).