The science behind what makes or breaks a team

Summary

This piece from Perry Timms (PTHR) explores ‘choice dynamics’ — the everyday, often invisible decisions that shape team outcomes. Drawing on behavioural science, social psychology and classic team research, the article identifies seven micro-choices teams repeatedly make (voice vs silence, step forward vs step back, go all in vs do just enough, collaborate vs compete, consent vs compliance, mirror vs diverge, own vs avoid) and explains how context, signals and structure make some choices easier than others.

Author style: Punchy — concise, evidence-led and practical.

Key Points

Teams fail less from lack of talent and more from everyday choices being withheld — psychological safety determines whether people speak up.
Leadership is dynamic: effective teams let leadership shift based on trust, role clarity and social rules rather than formal authority alone.
Extra effort is discretionary and driven by autonomy, competence and relatedness; remove these and people conserve energy.
System design matters: if incentives reward individuals over collective results, self-protection beats collaboration.
How decisions are made (consent vs compliance) affects ownership — participative processes build commitment, unilateral ones create buried resistance.
Social proof and modelling make behaviour contagious; dominant norms (cynicism, overwork, silence) tend to be copied for safety.
Responsibility is chosen; clarity and a culture that rewards stepping up reduce bystander effects and increase ownership.

Content summary

The article introduces choice dynamics as a lens for understanding team behaviour. It summarises relevant theories (Amy Edmondson on psychological safety; J. Richard Hackman on team effectiveness; Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory; game theory; Thaler and Sunstein on choice architecture; Bandura and Cialdini on social learning and social proof; Latané and Darley on the bystander effect) and applies them to everyday team decisions. The central argument: people usually make the most available choice, not the ideal one — so leaders and team designers must make the better choice the most obvious.

Context and relevance

This is practical, evidence-informed guidance for managers, HR professionals and team leads. It ties well into current focus areas — psychological safety, hybrid working norms, performance culture and incentive design — and reminds leaders that small, repeated social signals and structures steer behaviour more than occasional interventions or tools.

Why should I read this?

Short answer: it helps you spot the tiny decisions that wreck or win teams. It’s quick, useful and gives you a framework to change the system so people do the right thing without drama. If you manage people, run projects or design team processes, this will save you time and awkward meetings later.