My boss showed me a list of the members of a project team. On paper, their inclusion made sense: Each person was talented, creative, and experienced.

But each person — and I mean this affectionately — was also basically a jackass. Especially Mike. Great operator, but boy — and I also mean this affectionately, since he and I got along great — he was a jerk.

“You know they’re going to kill each other,” I said.

“No doubt,” my boss said. “Left alone, they would be& be a disaster. So I’m going to add Rita to the team and put her in charge.”

On paper, that also made sense. Layering in someone like Rita — empathetic, intuitive, possessor of off-the-charts emotional intelligence — is a standard team-formation move. Smart leaders try to include at least one bridge-building, collaboration-fostering, interpersonal skills superstar to every team.

Unfortunately, adding Rita didn’t work. They didn’t kill each other, but the project went nowhere.

See Also:

Pig organ transplants inch closer with testing in the dead

Time-honored management traditions aside, failure shouldn’t have come as a surprise, since it turns out a team’s collective intelligence and effectiveness doesn’t hinge on its most emotionally intelligent member (like Rita). A team’s collective intelligence doesn’t even hinge on its average emotional intelligence.

Nope: Research shows a team’s collective intelligence hinges on its least emotionally intelligent member.

Or as Temple University professor Ravi Kudesia says, “Our collective intelligence is limited by jerks!”

Read more: Inc.