This paper addresses how joint obligations bear on what individual group members should do. I argue that joint obligations do not transmit to the individual level. On the view I defend, “What should we do?” and “What should I do?” are separate questions to be answered independently. I distinguish two versions of the view that joint obligations transmit to the individual level: Ought Transmission, according to which if a group ought to do something, then each group member ought to do their part; and Defeasible Transmission, according to which if a group have a joint obligation to do something, then each group member has a defeasible reason to do their part. I argue that we should reject both of these. I then defend the opposing view, No Transmission, against two objections: one which claims that this view cannot account for the connection between obligation and deliberation, and a second which alleges that No Transmission counterintuitively implies that it is indeterminate what a given individual should do in cases of a certain structure.