Beyond “Being Nice”: What Does an Effective Team Really Look Like?

What makes an effective team? Many leaders emphasise shared purpose, collaboration, and trust. While these priorities are important, they also present a hidden trap: equating niceness with success. Smooth meetings, minimal conflict, everyone getting along…

But here’s the problem… Some of the least effective teams look the nicest on the surface: they’re polite, they nod along, they avoid disagreement, and they underperform¹.

While it may feel great to work in a harmonious environment, the reality is, teams that are “too nice” often suppress the very friction that drives better thinking and stronger performance. They shy away from constructive challenge and don’t fully use the range of perspectives in the room. As a result, they make decisions that feel safer, move slower, and innovate less.

In this article, we will look at what effective teams actually look like, not just how they feel. We’ll explore why a little tension, when handled well, isn’t a sign of dysfunction but a sign of health. And we’ll break down how leaders can move from nice-but-ineffective to respectful-and-productive, where debate is welcome, and performance improves because of it.

The myth of the “happy team”

At first glance, the happiest teams seem like effective ones. People are friendly, there are few disagreements, and everyone seems aligned. But what looks like a high-functioning team can sometimes be a group of people who are quietly avoiding difficult conversations.

This dynamic is common in what Patrick Lencioni calls “artificial harmony” – a state where teams prioritise politeness over performance. In his book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”², Lencioni lists fear of conflict as a core reason why teams underdeliver. The dysfunction isn’t obvious. These teams don’t fight, they don’t struggle to get along; but the lack of challenge means poor decisions go unexamined and better ideas go unspoken.

In a Harvard Business Review article, The Hazards of a “Nice” Company Culture³, Timothy R. Clark describes these environments as having a “veneer of civility” that hides real dysfunction. Teams appear cohesive, but underneath, there’s a lack of psychological safety. People stay silent, not because they agree, but because they fear the social cost of speaking up.

Of course, harmony feels good. Unproductive conflict, such as personal attacks or unresolved tensions, can erode trust and create a toxic team environment. But if the team is so harmonious that no one’s pushing back, they’re not performing, they’re coasting.

Constructive challenge enables breakthrough thinking

Steps leaders can take towards a culture of creative friction

Every team operates in a different context, with its own strengths, challenges, and dynamics. Rather than treating this as a checklist to complete, leaders can use it as a menu: choose the actions most relevant to your environment, and most likely to create value where it’s needed.

Even one focused step can start to shift a team’s culture in powerful ways.

Before you change anything, measure where you are. The instinct might be to drop a few extra questions into the annual engagement survey, but that’s not enough. Engagement surveys tend to focus on satisfaction, motivation, and general perceptions of leadership or culture.

While useful, they rarely drill into the underlying thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that shape psychological safety day to day. Instead, use targeted diagnostic tools designed specifically to measure psychological safety.​

A 2023 McKinsey article explores how leaders can encourage healthy dissent⁷. Drawing on Oscar Wilde, it describes the ideal as a culture where teams are “playing gracefully with ideas”: listening to, and even nourishing, opposing points of view in a measured and respectful way.

To reach that level of open debate, senior leaders need to manage group dynamics carefully. That means resisting the urge to speak first or dominate the conversation, especially in early-stage discussions, brainstorming sessions, or when the goal is to gather diverse input. When leaders lead with their opinions, they can unintentionally shut down other voices. Instead, they should listen first, show real curiosity, and openly acknowledge when a dissenting view changes their thinking. That said, in high-pressure situations requiring swift decisions or clear direction, it can be more effective for leaders to speak early and decisively, as long as space for input has been created beforehand.

It’s not enough to have people with diverse perspectives at the table. You need to create the conditions for everyone to contribute meaningfully. Rotate who leads discussions and use structured formats like round-robins or “one-minute perspectives” to ensure all voices are heard, not just the loudest or most senior. Anonymous input tools, pre-meeting surveys, or shared documents can help people contribute ideas without fear of judgement.​

Psychological safety isn’t about being soft. It’s about creating an environment where people feel safe to take risks in service of better performance. That only works when it’s paired with accountability. In effective teams, people are free to challenge ideas, offer new solutions, and admit when something isn’t working; but they’re also clear on the outcomes that matter and what success looks like.

Make it clear that trying something new is valued as long as it’s tied to shared goals. Being clear about expectations (e.g., deliverables, roles, standard) gives people the structure they need to take risks responsibly.

Leaders can support this by co-creating clear goals with their teams, regularly revisiting what success looks like, holding learning reviews after key milestones, and clearly communicating which areas have room for experimentation versus those that require precision.

It’s easy to mistake a “nice” team for an effective one. When people get along and meetings run smoothly, it can feel like everything’s working. But that kind of surface-level harmony often masks the absence of real debate, honest feedback, and the kind of tension that sharpens thinking. If your team feels nice but stagnant, it’s time to look deeper.

Because the best teams don’t avoid tension, they harness it.​