By Georgie Flenberg and Adrian Furnham
If you want the best from your car, it helps to have some idea of how it all works. But do you know what’s going on under the bonnet of your team? What’s that weird rattling at the back? Why have we slowed down? And where’s that smoke coming from? Here’s an owner’s guide.
Most of us work in teams; we have to. The psychology of teamwork has been extensively studied. Successful teams, particularly and inevitably the board (the grown-ups), improve all business outcomes – morale, revenue and performance. Working in a happy, safe, and healthy team is a primary driver of employee engagement at all levels.
Equally, unhappy, inward-looking, back-stabbing, and politically devious teams cause mayhem. We know that boards often experience problems that render them dangerously ineffective. This includes bloated membership, naked ambition, conspiracies of silence, an ambiguity of roles and, despite this, resisting help.
But teamwork does not happen by chance. Teams are made of individuals with quirks and passions, blind spots and insights, foibles and strengths. We study the three cornerstones of individuals: their ability, (bright- and dark-side) personality, and motivation. They “come to the party” with complex needs, hopes, and contributions and set up complex dynamics, just like families. Some have an insight into their dynamics but most are focused on other things. Many fail and need help.
Team types
Over the years, we have observed and worked with teams in many organisations. Some come to us for help; others have been referred. Our research has led us to come up with a taxonomy of teams. This has always been based on a mixture of individual difference data from robust psychometric tests, as well as observation and … data. We believe our list is both comprehensive and insightful. What have tried to do is first describe the behaviours they display and what they think they’re great at. We have been particularly interested in the reality of how they actually operate and, critically, the consequences of their habits. Most important of all, we have noted around three actionable recommendations for each to improve team functioning.
1. The PLU (people like us) team
Behaviour:
They stroll into the meeting room mid-laugh, reminiscing about last night’s drinks or that one legendary offsite way back that no one else was at. Their inside jokes and shared history are thicker than concrete. These are the “People Like Us” – and, if you’re not “us”, good luck getting a word in.
There’s a lot of nodding, a lot of “great point”, and an alarming amount of back-slapping (sometimes metaphorical, sometimes physical). Their loyalty to each other is admirable – until you realise that it extends to never meaningfully challenging each other, ever.
Their energy is warm, their connection is genuine, but they use language, humour, and metaphors that unwittingly exclude people – private jokes, shared references, even an unwritten set of rules about how things get done. Outsiders don’t get it, but that’s fine, because PLUs don’t really notice outsiders.
What they think they’re great at:
“We have an amazing culture – there’s so much trust and support in this team.”
Reality:
The trust is real, but it’s selective. Challenge is rare, because deep-rooted patterns of friendship complicate the candour in conversation. Diversity of thought is limited, because anyone who “doesn’t fit” either stays silent or exits. The team reinforces its own perspective, making it an echo chamber rather than a high-performing unit.
Consequences:
- Strong “groupthink”, with ideas rarely sc
- Exclusion of outsiders, severely limiting diversity of thought and decision quality.
- Lack of honest feedback, leading to strategic blind spots.
How to Fix It:
- Introduce structured debate. Assign a “devil’s advocate” in discussions to challenge consensus thinking.
- Rotate team dynamics. Switch up project groups to mix people who don’t normally work together.
- Seek external / outsider input. Bring in different perspectives to challenge and test ideas.
2. The big-character team
Behaviour:
This team moves fast, because their leader moves fast, and often loudly. Every idea is met with enthusiasm, momentum is non-negotiable, and meetings feel more like TED Talks, except that no one else is allowed on stage. The leader speaks and heads nod, perhaps too enthusiastically. They may even clap. The introverts are left staring at their notepads, waiting for this to be over.
The leader finishes making their point. “Thoughts?” they ask expectantly. Silence. No one actually disagrees. Or at least, no one is willing to be the one who does. The Big-Character Team follows momentum, not scrutiny. The leader is magnetic, articulate, and convincing. The result is that ideas get nodded through without being tested.
What they think they’re great at:
“We have a strong, visionary leader who keeps us moving forward.”
Reality:
There’s movement, but not necessarily progress. The “spectators” in the team don’t contribute, and dissenting voices are drowned out. The leader assumes agreement but, in reality, many people are just nodding along.
Consequences:
- The loudest voices dominate decision-making.
- Over time, rather than challenge or contribute, team members disengage, and valuable perspectives are lost.
- Ideas aren’t stress-tested, leading to poor execution.
How to Fix It:
- Reverse the hierarchy. The Leader speaks last to prevent premature alignment.
- Build psychological safety. Explicitly ask
for opposing views and acknowledge
dissent positively. - Balance airtime. Introduce a “no repeat contributions” rule to force new voices into the conversation.
3. The false-harmony team
Behaviour:
This team is suspiciously polite. Meetings run smoothly, decisions come quickly, and consensus is reached without friction. But the real conversations happen later, in side chats, carefully worded emails, and coffee break venting sessions.
On the surface, everything looks seamless, but tension simmers beneath. People nod along, not out of true agreement, but because challenging ideas feels risky. They have opinions, but they’ve learned to share them elsewhere, where it’s safer.
The fear of being seen as negative or “not a team player” keeps people from speaking up when it matters. Concerns get whispered in corridors, frustrations surface in vague Slack messages, and disagreements turn into passive resistance rather than open discussion.
The fear of being seen as negative or “not a team player” keeps people from speaking up when it matters. Concerns get whispered in corridors, frustrations surface in vague Slack messages, and disagreements turn into passive resistance rather than open discussion.
No one is outright lying, but no one is being fully honest either. It’s an organisation-wide game of pretend consensus, where silence is mistaken for alignment, and discomfort replaces productive debate.
What they think they’re great at:
“We’re all on the same page. We don’t waste time on unnecessary conflict.”
Reality:
Disagreement hasn’t disappeared; it’s just been relocated. People conform in meetings but save their concerns for corridor conversations or passive-aggressive email threads. This team mistakes silence for alignment and, as a result, they miss out on the healthy tension that actually improves decision-making.
Consequences:
- Superficial alignment, with issues bubbling under the surface.
- A reluctance to challenge weak ideas, leading to poor decision-making.
- Passive resistance; people agree publicly but don’t execute properly.
How to Fix It:
- Introduce accountability. Before a decision is finalised, each person must write down their view and classify it as “green” (fully aligned), “amber” (some concerns), or “red” (not aligned). The leader sets a minimum number of greens before proceeding. Writing it down forces people to reconsider what they’re truly prepared to back.
- Encourage enquiry over direct challenge. Instead of outright disagreement, prompt discussion with open questions like, “That makes sense from an operational perspective. How would it play out for our customers?”
- Require pre-submitted input. Have team members submit concerns in advance, ensuring that issues are surfaced before discussions, not after.
4. The bright-sparks team
Behaviour:
If ideas were currency, this team would be billionaires. They don’t just brainstorm; they erupt with creativity, throwing out new concepts, angles, and innovations at breakneck speed. Meetings are a whirlwind of inspiration, sticky notes pile up, whiteboards overflow, and the air crackles with excitement.
But, while they excel at the art of conception, they flounder in execution. They make ephemeral progress on multiple fronts, but nothing ever truly lands. There’s always a new idea, a better approach, or an even more exciting opportunity just around the corner. And so, the cycle repeats.
They are always creating, but they aren’t prioritising. And creativity without prioritisation, pragmatism, and follow-through? That’s just expensive procrastination.
What they think they’re great at:
“We’re a highly creative, innovative team.”
Reality:
They are creative. But in their world, the spark is more exciting than the fire. The thrill of ideation trumps the discipline of delivery. And, while they may pride themselves on being idea generators, without execution, all that brilliance is wasted potential.
Consequences:
- High energy but little tangible progres
- Chaos and burnout in the layers below; good people leave.
- Lack of impact because nothing is executed properly.
How to Fix It:
- Prioritise ruthlessly. Not every idea deserves time and resources.
- Set execution deadlines. Hold people accountable for completing what they start. If there’s no deadline, it’s not real.
- Appoint a “closer”. Someone needs to own delivery. This person ensures that at least some of the brilliance makes it out into the real world.
5. The rapid-responder team
Behaviour:
This team don’t just react; they overreact. They’re always in motion, “always on”. Emails are answered in milliseconds, Slack messages get immediate replies, and meetings are more like triage units than spaces for meaningful discussion. The pace is relentless. They take pride in their ability to handle anything but the truth is that they mistake constant activity for actual productivity.
They thrive in crisis mode and, in fact, they unconsciously seek it out. If things are too calm, they get twitchy. Stillness feels like inefficiency. They measure their value in how fast they solve problems, not whether those problems should exist in the first place.
There’s little patience for reflection, big-picture thinking, or long-term strategy. They fight fires all day but never build fire prevention systems.
What they think they’re great at:
“We are the most efficient team in the company. If there’s a problem, we’ll fix it – fast.”
Reality:
They get things done, but often the same things, over and over again. There’s no space for strategic thinking, because they’re so busy reacting to urgent (often trivial) issues; long-term projects suffer.
Consequences:
- Problems are solved on the surface, but deeper issues remain unaddressed, creating an endless cycle of reactivity.
- Short-term fixes dominate. Success is measured by speed, not impact—leaving no space to evaluate whether the right problems are being solved at all.
- The rest of the organisation learns to rely on them as a rapid-response unit instead of taking ownership of their own responsibilities.
How to Fix It:
- Create a pause mechanism. Ask, “Is this urgent or just loud?”, “Are we solving the same problem again?”
- Introduce reflection time. Set aside time to identify patterns, think strategically, and improve processes.
- Instead of always being the first responder, the team should coach others to solve their own problems.
6. The overthinkers
Behaviour:
This team is addicted to complexity. Every decision is a masterpiece of analysis, dissected from every conceivable angle, with every risk painstakingly documented. Nothing moves until every possible scenario has been explored, stress-tested, and debated into submission.
Their meetings are exercises in intellectual endurance. The phrase “Let’s take a step back” is used 10 times per discussion. PowerPoints swell to 60 slides, often with more footnotes than main content. Decisions aren’t made; they are monumental events requiring weeks of prereading, stakeholder alignment, and a multi-step approval process.
Questions are answered with more questions. There is always another variable to assess, another risk to mitigate, another layer of nuance to peel back.
The result? Progress grinds to a halt. A simple “yes or no” becomes a research project. While other teams are executing, this team is still debating whether the decision should even be made at all.
What they think they’re great at:
“We are rigorous, data-driven, and highly analytical.”
Reality:
They believe that their meticulous approach ensures bulletproof decisions but, in practice, it just slows everything down. While they scrutinise every detail, braver (and sometimes less competent) teams are already executing. In their pursuit of perfection, they overlook the cost of delay.
Meanwhile, the rest of the organisation is watching – and waiting. Stakeholders grow frustrated. Colleagues stop bringing them into conversations because they know it will lead to delays. Over time, the team becomes known less for its analytical rigour and more for its inability to get things done.
Consequences:
- Missed opportunities due to slow decision-making.
- Team fatigue from excessive analysis.
- Frustration from stakeholders waiting for action.
How to Fix It:
- Impose deadlines. Force decisions at key moments.
- Set “good enough” thresholds. Define what level of certainty is actually required.
- Appoint a decision driver. Make it someone’s job to move things forward.
7. The martyrs
Behaviour:
They are hardworking, dedicated, and visibly exhausted. Emails at 11 pm – standard; working through lunch – of course; logging in on holiday – only if they take a holiday, which they won’t, because who else would hold the place together? Classic maladaptive workaholism.
The Martyrs pride themselves on their commitment – but it’s not just about dedication. There’s an underlying resentment brewing beneath the surface.
The Martyrs pride themselves on their commitment – but it’s not just about dedication. There’s an underlying resentment brewing beneath the surface. If you leave on time, they notice. If you take a proper lunch break, they see you. And if you dare set a boundary? Expect a pointed “must be nice” comment at some stage.
They say they want better work-life balance. They say they want efficiency. But, deep down, they believe that suffering is a sign of commitment, and anyone who isn’t suffering is somehow letting the side down.
What they think they’re great at:
“We are the backbone of this company. We do whatever it takes.”
Reality:
They are hardworking – too hardworking. But at what cost? Productivity, burnout, passive-aggressive Slack messages?
Their exhaustion doesn’t actually make them more effective; just more resentful. And, ironically, their non-stop work often results in less strategic thinking, more mistakes, and an increasing sense of “what is even the point?”
Consequences:
- Chronic burnout and stress, leading to high turnover.
- A toxic culture of guilt around setting boundaries.
- Short-term wins at the expense of long-term sustainability.
How to Fix It:
- Kill the “busyness badge”. Stop celebrating overwork as a sign of dedication.
- Enforce real boundaries. Leaders need to model leaving on time, taking breaks, and not responding at 11 pm.
- Measure output, not hours. Reward impact, not just effort.
8. The mavericks (aka: the sales team)
Behaviour:
If this team had a LinkedIn bio, it would be: “Breaking records. Breaking rules. Breaking 100 on the golf course.” If they had a WhatsApp group, it would be filled with unread messages and the occasional GIF of a wolf pack.
They are dealmakers, rainmakers, and headline-makers. They win big, because they move fast, take risks, and refuse to be constrained by bureaucracy. Process is for other people. Governance is a suggestion. HR policies? Cute.
They operate on a heady mix of instinct, charisma, and sheer audacity. They don’t just sell an idea, they sell the belief that it will work, often before the details are figured out. They can out-negotiate, out-network, and out-manoeuvre almost anyone, and they thrive in high-pressure, high-stakes environments.
But competition isn’t just external, it’s internal, too. Every win is celebrated but also measured against their peers. Collaboration happens only if there’s an edge to be gained. If you slow them down, they’ll bulldoze past you. If you try to rein them in, they’ll argue their way around the rules. Banter is their love language, and they can charm, hustle, or bluff their way into (or out of) anything.
What they think they’re great at:
“We bring in the business. Without us, there’s no company.”
Reality:
They do bring in business. But their relentless win-at-all-costs approach leaves chaos in its wake. Deals get closed, but the fine print gets overlooked. Targets get hit, but at the cost of client relationships, internal trust and, occasionally, their own integrity.
They resent rules, but the truth is that some of those rules exist to protect them – from lawsuits, reputational damage and, in extreme cases, each other.
Consequences:
- High turnover – burnout, stress, or getting poached by a competitor.
- Risk exposure – regulatory issues, angry clients, “misunderstandings” in contracts.
- Toxic internal competition – every win is someone else’s loss.
How to Fix It:
- Create structure without killing autonomy. Give them flexibility, but with clear guardrails.
- Align incentives with long-term impact. Reward sustainable growth, not just quick wins.
- Manage the internal competition. Channel their drive into collective wins, not just individual battles.
9. The diversity mirage
Behaviour:
On paper, this team is a poster child for diversity. Different backgrounds, different experiences, different perspectives – it looks great in a company brochure. They should be the most innovative, forward-thinking, high-performing team around.
But in reality? It’s not working. Meetings are a minefield. Communication styles clash. Decisions take forever, because no one quite knows how to navigate the differences. Some people dominate, while others retreat.
There’s diversity, but no inclusion. Instead of harnessing their differences, they’re tripping over them. Some feel unheard. Others feel misunderstood. And a few are just quiet-quitting from the whole experience.
What they think they’re great at:
“We are a diverse, progressive team with a wide range of perspectives.”
Reality:
They are diverse, but diversity without inclusion is just optics. The team is fragmented, misunderstood, and struggling to work together effectively.
Instead of leveraging their differences, they’re either avoiding them altogether or fighting over them constantly.
Consequences:
- Great ideas never surface because the loudest voices win.
- Some members feel excluded despite the appearance of diversity.
- Tension, misalignment, and unintentional silos.
How to Fix It:
- Teach the team how to work together, not just exist together. Facilitate real conversations about communication styles and decision-making preferences.
- Equalise airtime. Don’t let dominant voices control discussions; create deliberate opportunities for everyone to contribute.
- Move beyond tokenism. Ensure that diversity translates into meaningful inclusion, where differences are actually valued (not just tolerated).
10. The rotten core
Behaviour:
This team should be unstoppable. They’re bright, good at what they do, respect each other, and challenge ideas without ego. They’ve cracked the code on high performance.
Except there’s a problem. One person – just one – is subtly poisoning the well.
Meet The Rotten Core, who is not overtly aggressive or blatantly insubordinate. That would be too easy to spot. Instead, they operate in the shadows. They roll their eyes in meetings. They make “just saying” comments that undermine decisions. They plant tiny seeds of doubt – about leadership, about a colleague’s competence, about whether this whole thing is even going anywhere.
They excel at plausible deniability. They never outright criticise, just imply. They’re just “raising concerns”. They’re just “playing devil’s advocate”. They’re just “saying what everyone’s thinking”.
And the worst part? They’re not entirely wrong. Every high-performing team has cracks – natural tensions, frustrations, moments of uncertainty. But The Rotten Core amplifies these, distorts them, and makes them fester. The team, once cohesive and driven, starts second-guessing itself. Trust erodes. Motivation dips. And somehow, no one can quite pinpoint why.
What they think they’re great at:
“I just tell it like it is. I’m not afraid to speakthe truth.”
Reality:
They mistake cynicism for insight. Their “truth-telling” is actually selective, designed to stir discontent without offering solutions.
Consequences:
The rot spreads; cynicism is contagious. Once one person starts rolling their eyes or casting doubt, others pick up the same behaviours. Negativity becomes the norm.
Decision paralysis; people hesitate to commit, because they’re worried they’re missing something or, worse, about to be criticised for it.
Instead of focusing on performance, leaders waste time managing politics and emotional fallouts. Energy that should go into growth and problem-solving is spent firefighting internal trust issues.
How to Fix It:
- Make negativity accountable. Ask them, “What solution do you suggest?” every time they raise an issue. If they have none, they’re just stirring the pot.
- Call out the pattern. Not in an aggressive way, but in a “Hey, I’ve noticed a lot of concerns being raised without constructive next steps. What’s going on?” way.
- Reinforce the culture. Remind the team what makes them great and refuse to let one person’s cynicism erode that. If necessary, have a direct, clear conversation about the impact of their behaviour.
11. The Institutional Guardians (AKA: “Tenure is Everything”)
Behaviour:
If you’ve only been here five years, you’re still the new kid. This team runs on history, hierarchy, and a deep respect for “the way things have always been done”.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things, and, conveniently, the right way just so happens to be exactly how they’ve always done it. New ideas are met with polite scepticism. Fresh perspectives are not needed, thanks. Change only if it was first proposed in 1998.
This team takes immense pride in their legacy; they’ve built something enduring, and they’re not about to let some bright-eyed, MBA-waving newbie come in and ruin it with their modern nonsense. New hires get the message that they can earn their place over a decade or two.
What they think they’re great at:
“We have deep expertise and institutional knowledge. We know what works.”
Reality:
They do have valuable knowledge and experience. But legacy isn’t a strategy. They are so busy protecting the past that they’re stifling the future.
Instead of evolving, they’re preserving. And, instead of leading the industry, they’re watching it move past them, one unapproved change at a time.
Consequences:
- Stagnation – new ideas struggle to take root, and innovation is stifled.
- High turnover of younger talent who feel ignored and undervalued.
- The team feels stable but, in reality, it’s slowly becoming irrelevant.
How to Fix It:
- Separate “valuable legacy” from “outdated tradition”. Audit why things are done a certain way and whether it still makes sense.
- Create structured ways for new ideas to be tested. Pilot fresh approaches without threatening existing systems.
- Mentorship, not gatekeeping. Help long-tenured employees transfer their knowledge instead of just protecting it.
12. The Hub-and-Spoke Crew (AKA: A Group, Not a Team)
Behaviour:
This isn’t really a team. It’s a collection of individuals who all report to the same leader but don’t actually work together. The leader is the hub, and each team member is a spoke – connected to the centre but not to each other.
Meetings feel like a series of 1:1 updates, where each person talks to the leader and no one else says a word. If someone asks for input from another team member, you can physically feel the awkwardness in the room.
They don’t even know what each other does. If someone left tomorrow, half the team wouldn’t even notice, because their job has zero overlap with anyone else.
Collaboration, they believe, is not their problem; alignment is unnecessary; cross-functional projects are irrelevant.
What they think they’re great at:
“We are efficient and focused, and everyone knows their role.”
Reality:
They might be individually productive, but they’re not actually a team. They miss out on: shared learning (because no one talks to each other); efficiency (because information isn’t flowing between them); better solutions (because no one is building on anyone else’s work).
The real irony? The leader is overloaded, because every single issue has to be routed through them.
Consequences:
- The leader becomes the single point of failure, overloaded with decisions, while the team remains disconnected, operating in isolated silos rather than as a cohesive unit.
- Because there’s little collaboration or shared accountability, work gets duplicated, inefficiencies creep in, and valuable insights that could strengthen the team’s output are lost.
- Without a real sense of belonging or interdependence, team members disengage from the bigger picture, focusing only on their own tasks while innovation, problem-solving, and collective progress suffer.
How to Fix It:
- Make meetings about the team, not just the leader. Introduce peer-to-peer discussions instead of just leader check-ins.
- Force some strategic overlap. Design projects where people actually have to work together.
- Get clear on shared purpose. Define why this group exists as a team, not just as direct reports.
Conclusion: the patterns you don’t see
Every team thinks they’re unique. Indeed they are – different industries, different people, different challenges. But, after years of working with teams across the world, we’ve learned that they are far more predictable than they think.
Teams go wrong, and with various serious consequences. They focus on where they want to be, without first getting an honest, objective view of where they are now.
The most important job of a leader is to build a high-performing team. It’s not an HR function or a side project. It is the job. Leaders try to drive performance without first understanding the behaviours, mindsets, and cultural undercurrents that are shaping their team’s trajectory.
We use the Hogan Assessment, not just to describe a team, but to predict how they will behave and perform if nothing changes. It reveals the hidden patterns at play, the unconscious habits shaping decisions, and the risks that could derail progress. We might triangulate that data with broader reviews – team diagnostics, stakeholder feedback, and real-world observations – that make up a very clear picture.
Forewarned is forearmed. Once a leader understands their team – not just their intentions – they face a choice. If they don’t manage it with intention, their team’s effectiveness will be left to chance.
Team-building models, roadmaps, charters and various tools can all help a leader to harness the best of what they have to meet their goals. But, it starts with self-awareness (what do you have?), intention (how will you make the best of it?), courage (to do the right thing, not the easy thing), and discipline (to keep doing it, consistently).
Because great teams don’t just happen. They need to be built, nurtured, and developed – deliberately, thoughtfully, and with full awareness of where they’re starting from.
If you understand the predictability of your team and choose not to act, then performance becomes accidental. But if you take charge, if you own the responsibility of building a high-performing team, then your team’s success is no longer a gamble. It’s a strategy. And that is leadership defined succinctly as the “ability to form, maintain and motivate a team, more adapted and successful than your competitors”. Amen.
About the Authors
Georgie Fienberg is a business speaker and leadership adviser. She works with global clients ranging from FTSE 100 C-suites to the British Parliament, specialising in applying behavioural science to building high-performing teams and cultures.
Adrian Furnham is a business speaker and consultant. He is Professor at Birkbeck Business School and the Norwegian Business School. He has written 100 books translated into 40 languages.
References
-
Allen, N.J. & West, M.A. (2017). “Selection for Teams”, The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection. Oxford: (pp. 476-94).
-
Belbin, R.M. (2012). Team Roles at Work. Abingdon: Routledge.
-
Furnham, A. (2018). “The Dynamics of the Boardroom: Typical Problems and How to Fix Them”, The European Business Review, Oct-Nov, 51-5.
-
Johnson, S.S.(2021). “The Science of Teamwork”, American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(5):730-32. doi:10.1177/08901171211007955a
-
Kets de Vries, M. (2011). The Hedgehog Effect. London: Wiley
-
McCann, D., & Margerison, C. (1985). “Team Management Profiles: Their use in management development”, Journal of Management Development, 4(2), 34–47.
-
Mathieu, J.E., Hollenbeck, J.R., Van Knippenberg, D.L., & Ilgen, D. (2017). “A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452-67.
-
Salas, E., Reyes, D.L., & McDaniel, S.H. (2018). “The science of teamwork: progress, reflections, and the road ahead”, American Psychologist, 73(4):593–600.
-
van Dierendonck, D., & Groen, R. (2011). “Belbin revisited: A multitrait-multimethod investigation of a team role instrument”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 345-66.
