The Agony and Ecstasy of Teams: Living with the Continuum
In a world obsessed with collaboration, the cult of the team can sometimes go too far. We’ve all heard the slogans: “Teamwork makes the dream work”, “There’s no ‘I’ in team”, “Together everyone achieves more.” But what if our over-reliance on teams is holding us back?
The truth is, not every challenge needs a team. Rather like some stages of this blog series, some work is best done alone - fast, focused, and without the drag of endless meetings and consensus-building. In many organisations, teams become a default structure rather than a deliberate choice. Some places risk forming groups for everything: steering groups, scrums, working groups, cross-functional clusters. But more isn’t always better. Sometimes, too many cooks don’t just spoil the broth - they stop it from ever getting made.
As we’ve already covered in a previous blog, even the term team is over-used, when group is a better description, or what’s really needed is a network or mesh of people
Over-focusing on teams can also mask deeper issues. Poor leadership? Form a team. Strategy unclear? Let’s have a workshop. Culture problems? Team away day. In reality, these problems often require bold, key decision-making, clarity of purpose, and systemic change - things that can get diluted in the fog of group process.
There’s also a danger of groupthink, where teams value harmony over challenge and end up reinforcing the status quo. Or the bystander effect, where everyone assumes someone else will take responsibility. And let’s not forget the emotional labour that team dynamics require - managing personalities, navigating power plays, masking disagreement to “keep the peace.”
In some contexts, teams even become a form of control. Presented as empowering, they are sometimes used to flatten hierarchy while quietly expecting unpaid emotional labour and unacknowledged leadership from the most conscientious members.
Of course, collaboration is important. But it should be a choice, not a reflex. We need to ask: Does this work require a team, or does it require clarity, commitment, and a few brave individuals willing to take action? Maybe the future of work isn’t about more teams—but about smarter structures, sharper focus, and a better balance between the individual and the collective.
In short: teams can be powerful—but they’re not a panacea. Let’s not romanticise group work and let’s encourage thinking more critically about when and how we come together.
We are often asked to work with leaders, organisations and teams on these very issues. And whilst we are known for know-how around developing teams and shaping more participative and inclusive cultures, we are a community of practitioners that live into a whole person whole system approach. An approach that values the autonomy of the person whilst also engaging with the wider context around them – self and others – the I, the we, the all of us.
If you are a reader from one of our partner organisations, you’ll likely recognise that despite the challenges and occasional overuse, there’s a reason teams remain central to how many organisations operate, and why they need on-going attention. At their best, teams provide a home base—a place where people are seen, supported, and connected to something larger than themselves. In complex and high-pressure environments, a strong team can offer psychological safety, shared purpose, and a rhythm of working that makes the rest of the organisation more navigable.
Some organisations deliberately structure themselves around small, trusted teams. These are not bloated, bureaucratic teams or groups; they are tight-knit, mission-driven units that become microcosms of the culture the organisation wants to cultivate. In these environments, trust within teams becomes the foundation for trust across the whole system. People learn to rely on each other, make decisions closer to the action and resolve tensions early—without needing everything to escalate upwards.
The result? Pace. Not the frantic busyness of overloaded collaboration, but the fluid speed of people who know their roles, trust their colleagues, and are empowered to act, even in fast changing circumstances. This kind of team-led structure also creates greater resilience. When trust and clarity live at the team level, organisations are less brittle—able to adapt, absorb shocks, and keep moving without waiting for top-down instruction.
Other benefits follow: improved learning, more distributed leadership, stronger accountability, and more meaningful engagement and relationship. People don’t just perform tasks—they belong, contribute, and grow.
So while it’s important to challenge the blind use of teams, it’s equally important to recognise when they are used with intention and care. When designed well, teams can be more than units of productivity. They can be homes—places of shared effort, challenge, and care that bring the best of human potential to life.
Does this speak to you? How are you working with these issues? How have you worked out where you need to be on the individual – team continuum? To what extent do you have your intended state in mind, but are struggling with the implementation?
Nick Ellerby is a coach and Co-Director at Oasis Human Relations, one of a group of thirty plus practitioners working in partnerships across sectors as coaches, hosts, convenors, speaking partners, facilitators, researchers and changemakers.
Why not try a FREE Discovery Session to see if an Oasis Coach would be right for you? Just click on the button below: