How much of your day is spent in meetings? The related question people fail to ask is: how many teams are you on? With the rise of project-based and matrixed organizations, people are on more and more teams. While this can be effective, it can also increase emotional exhaustion and lead to performance drops from meeting overload, role conflict, and/or lack of clear prioritization. Low to moderate multiple-team membership can be beneficial, but there’s a clear tipping point without ruthless prioritization and role clarity.
Matrix Overload
A Gallup study of a large U.S. tech company found highly matrixed employees spent 33% of their day in internal meetings—versus just 2% for non-matrixed peers—leading to fragmented focus and burnout. Leaders juggling 5+ teams reported 20% higher emotional exhaustion, with performance dipping as coordination across silos eroded decision speed.
Project Managers in Crisis Response
Research on crisis team leaders in matrixed healthcare settings showed multiple team membership created role conflicts from dual reporting, spiking exhaustion and laissez-faire leadership. One case highlighted managers on 4-6 teams experiencing 15-25% drops in team psychological safety and output due to unclear priorities amid competing demands.
People on multiple teams often pay the price for conflicting priorities in the business. I’ve seen this over and over. A team member may call out a place where resources are pulled in two directions; but a lot of times they won’t speak up.
So the question for executives is: “How many teams is each leader on—and who owns saying ‘no’ when the portfolio is unsustainable?” The problem is not usually the meeting, it’s the underlying structure.