- Mon, 19 October 2026
If you ever watched and more closely followed any team sports you would notice how, in order to get to the best results fast, owners often change the people in the team and contract coaches and players with good reputation and portfolio, which usually means they won games or championships previously, their statistics are impeccable, as individual they have outstanding skills etc. The expectation is that by bringing people with high skills into the team, the results will be much better and achieved faster. The disappointment comes right after the acknowledgement of the fact that, no matter in how good or bad performing team you bring the superstars, if they do not fit well with the rest of the group, their skills will not matter at all. The same thing occurs if you gather all the superstars in one team expecting them to be the superstar team. But great team is not made like that just by gathering a few great people around.
Why is this happening? It is very simple. Superstars can play individualistic sports and excel in it. They challenge themselves and rely on themselves. In team sports one person might bring you down or lift you up but will not single-handedly get the results you wished for. It is like putting a completely wrong piece into the puzzle just because it looks pretty on the outside. Unfortunately it does not complete the story, right? A square will never take a place of the heart. How can they play together well if nobody knows what is the other ones style of playing? How will they agree on the next move, when they do not know each other’s secret codes? How will they pass the ball to each other in difficult times if there is no trust?
The same issue persists in the corporate world. Teams do not become effective and high-performing by accident, nor overnight, nor by bringing together some amazing people. They grow through repeated cycles of trust-building, challenge, alignment, accountability, learning, and turning shared goal into delivery. When observed, team dynamics describe the visible and invisible forces that shape how people communicate with each other, make decisions, handle conflict, and take ownership of shared outcomes together. In product environments, this is especially important because team performance depends not only on skills, but also on collaboration quality, psychological safety, transparency, and continuous adaptation.
Two useful lenses for understanding team dynamics are Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Bruce Tuckman’s stages of team development. I have already dissected the 5 team dysfunctions in previous articles and now we are going to compare them and try to understand how these two models differ and complement each other. In short:
Lencioni explains what prevents teams from becoming cohesive: absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results.
Tuckman explains how teams typically mature over time through different stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Together, these models help leaders, Scrum Masters, and coaches diagnose where a team is stuck and decide what kind of intervention is needed.
Lencioni’s model shows what are the good patterns and counter patterns which will make a team thrive or just survive.
Tuckman’s model shows that team development is a process and takes time, like growing flowers in your garden.
The two models are most powerful when used together.
For Scrum Masters and Agile leaders, the practical message is clear: lead them by the situation or the stage they are in. Here “situational leadership” matrix is useful to understand what kind of guidance does the team need in which stage.
For example, a forming team may need trust-building and clarity. Here you can use more directive leadership approach, and “I decide” rule with telling and selling levels of delegation. A storming team may need facilitation of healthy conflict, and they need more consulting and advising. A norming team may need stronger commitment and accountability, so they might need coaching and alignment. A performing team may need to protect focus on shared results and avoid slipping into complacency, as for the leaders this is a full delegation mode. And no matter which stage they are on, coaching is always welcomed and appreciated.
Second more important, do not treat team dysfunction as a personal failure. Treat it as system information. If people avoid speaking up, create safety. If conflict is hidden, make disagreement constructive. If decisions do not stick, improve alignment. If ownership is weak, clarify agreements. If outputs matter more than outcomes, reconnect the team to value and results.
Healthy team dynamics require continuous attention. Teams move forward, regress, and reform whenever priorities, roles, membership, or external pressure changes. The goal is not to avoid or skip stages nor eliminate all dysfunction forever. The goal is to notice patterns early, make them discussable, and help the team build the habits needed for sustainable performance. By using these two formats and models to assess the team’s stage of maturity and disfunction, you will understand what is the next step you as a leader should take to support their development.
Sign up our newsletter to get update information, news and free insight.
