The highest performing teams don't all have the absence of dysfunction. They have the presence of functioning—they operate effectively enough and have created the conditions well enough that the team can be effective despite any elements of dysfunction that might exist.
This is not to say that any dysfunction that is toxic or damaging should not be addressed, but rather that it is inevitable in any human system to have some degree of dysfunction. None of us are perfect, so there are no perfect teams. Sometimes, particularly for those in people leadership roles, we can get quite distracted by signals, signs, or symptoms of dysfunction—two team members not getting along, small breakdowns of communication, etc. If we focus on all the dysfunction that exists within a team, we can get too distracted with fire-fighting. In many teams I've worked with, years could have been spent fire-fighting without fully resolving the dysfunction.
A high performing team is one that can accept some level of the inevitable dysfunction that exists amongst human beings, and instead put in place conditions where we can function as effectively as possible together—essentially creating a collective capacity that functions well enough to hold small amounts of dysfunction. This is one of the key ideas behind TeamHive.
An example from my own work
A leader once called me about two team members in conflict. Before agreeing to come in and support, I asked the leader a few questions. I was less interested in the individuals and perceived conflict—and more interested in their intentions, and what was going on around them. He described multiple leadership changes and overlapping roles causing turf wars. I said, "You haven't got two people in conflict. You've created the conditions where conflict is inevitable." I had coached this leader, so I knew he had the tools and insight to resolve it once he actually understood it. I suggested he chat with the team members about their positive intentions, their goals, and how they can best contribute. A week later, he called back: "They actually like each other and respect each other quite a bit. We just left them to flounder in uncertainty for too long and they each feared one of them might not be needed because the other was taking up the work, so they had stopped collaborating and started competing. Once I explained the bigger picture and how both their outcomes and intentions were needed, they seemed to calmly agree who would do what and how they could work together." It's interesting how easily two well-intentioned, capable people ended up in conflict. You’d be surprised how often this occurs in teams. Instead of focusing on the details of the conflict or seeking personal conflict resolution, the leader simply changed some of the conditions to enable the team members to be able to work effectively. They didn't need an external intervention.
Best practice: Create the conditions for team effectiveness
Rather than trying to remove all dysfunction (which is a never-ending firefighting process), ask: How do we create the conditions where everyone in this team can be as effective and productive together?
The Team Hive PLUS Model emerged from research that identified four key conditions that make the biggest difference:
Purpose – We understand who that purpose serves, all stakeholders, and the value they require. We execute on that purpose through decision-making and resource allocation.
Learning – We use challenges to learn and improve. We're constantly working on how we want to work together and what we could do to be more effective.
Unity – It's a safe space to speak up. We're having constructive conversations. Things that need to be said are being said. Feedback is being exchanged. We have a sense of belonging—a group of people who can have each other's backs.
Shared Leadership – Team success doesn't come down to one person. Each of us is responsible for the outcomes. There are no hero leaders, only hero teams. We're open to and seeking diverse perspectives.
A famous example: 1997/98 Chicago Bulls triumph despite dysfunction
The 1997–98 Chicago Bulls captured a third consecutive NBA championship despite multiple unresolved conflicts. Michael Jordan routinely bullied his teammates. Scottie Pippen was in a contract negotiation standoff with management, and wildcard Dennis Rodman frequently went AWOL. Most destructively, General Manager Jerry Krause openly told Head Coach Phil Jackson that he would be fired at the end of the season even if the team won every game.
Instead of trying to “fix” these deep-rooted individual personalities and clashes, Phil Jackson focused on the team’s collective capacity. Thinking in terms of the TeamHive PLUS model, he enhanced Purpose by notoriously branding the season “The Last Dance,” locking a group of disparate individuals into a single, undeniable collective mission that drove their emotional attachment to the goal. Despite the off-court chaos, the team maintained a relentless Learning orientation, committing deeply to the complex mechanics and adaptive problem-solving required by their "Triangle" offense. Through this system, they achieved a high degree of Shared Leadership —eliminating the single-point failure of relying solely on Jordan by empowering every player to read the floor, make decisions, and hold each other accountable. The team's Unity may have been patchy in places, but they had created enough of the conditions to enable them to succeed.
Effective teams aren’t just luck of the draw, the "players" you get handed or even when you’re lucky enough to select exactly the people you want. The right people won’t always give you the most effective team. But we know that these four team conditions predict team effectiveness and performance outcomes.
