The science behind what makes or breaks a team

In our first article, we zoomed out to explore people science from a macro perspective on meaningful work – and what motivates people in pursuit of it.

In this second instalment, we will examine what science can tell us about choices, to help us get the best from our fellow humans in the construct of teams.

An introduction to choice dynamics

First, let’s look at choice dynamics – a term used in the psychology field but more widely known through terms like decision-making or choice architecture. The phrase choice dynamics is used in fields such as behavioural economics, social psychology, neuroscience, and organisational behaviour to signal the fluid and contextual nature of how we make decisions in social constructs.

It refers broadly to the processes, influences, and patterns involved in how people make choices, especially in complex, uncertain, or socially influenced situations. We could describe these as the micro-movements that shape everything in how a team of people interacts and interoperates.

In every team, choices are being made constantly, but not always consciously. These choices are not just about tasks and timelines – they are about whether to speak up, how much to contribute, who to follow, and what to resist.

Through the choice dynamics frame, we can view our choices as a series of decisions, words, and actions that are fluid, responsive, and often subconscious – shaped by power, psychology, and perceived safety. 

Seven elements of choice dynamics in teams

Here, we outline seven key elements of choice dynamics in team environments (there are plenty more!). While we may recognise some of these, it’s helpful to know the core theories behind them to better understand teams, social dynamics and decision-making psychology.

1. Voice or silence

Teams don’t often misfire or fail for a lack of ideas; they are often impaired because ideas are withheld.

Professor Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety shows us that people choose silence not out of laziness or apathy, but a perception of fear: fear of judgment, criticism, and even an accusation of insubordination.

That single micro-choice – to raise a hand or not – often tells you everything about the team’s real culture, not the espoused one in the onboarding slide pack.

2. Step forward or step back

Who leads in teams isn’t always about formal authority. Another Harvard Professor J. Richard Hackman, developed a model on the five factors of team effectiveness. In this model, he highlights how successful teams allow leadership to shift dynamically. But that shift depends on trust, role clarity, and the invisible social rules that govern who can take the lead without repercussion. 

Here, social role theory meets situational leadership in practice – where people make constant calls about visibility, risk, and their internal narrative.

3. Go all in or do just enough

This is the terrain of additional/discretionary effort, where the ‘extra energy’ people choose to invest (or withhold). In part one, we introduced Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory and how people thrive when they feel autonomy, competence, and relatedness/connection.

Reduce those, and even the most capable contributors will begin to conserve effort. The choice to go ‘above and beyond’ doesn’t live in job descriptions –  it is in how people feel treated and trusted.

4. Collaborate or compete

Put people in a team, and you hope they collaborate. But game theory – and countless lived experiences – remind us that people often make decisions that protect the self, not the system.

If team structures incentivise individual recognition over shared outcomes, we create conditions where self-interest becomes the rational choice. This is not a shortcoming in someone’s personality; it’s a function of what the system signals as beneficial and desired.

5. Consent or compliance

How a decision is made deeply shapes how it’s received. The choice architecture work of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein shows us that even subtle shifts in how options are presented change engagement outcomes. 

In teams, decisions that emerge through dialogue, even if not unanimous, produce deeper ownership than those handed down without context. 

Participative decision-making creates psychological investment. Without it, you get surface agreement and buried resistance.

6. Mirror or diverge

We often believe we make independent choices. But Albert Bandura’s social learning theory and Professor Robert Cialdini’s work on social proof show us how much we’re influenced by group norms.

In teams, behaviour is contagious. If cynicism, overwork, or silence are dominant, people will tend to conform – not because they actually believe in it, but because mirroring keeps them safe.

7. Own or avoid

Responsibility is not handed out; it’s chosen. Bibb Latané and John Darley’s bystander effect explains how people can psychologically offload accountability in groups, especially when roles are unclear and messy.

High-performing teams counter this through clarity, trust, and cultures where stepping up isn’t punished or politicised. The choice to take ownership becomes easier when it’s not a gamble.

Making the best choice the most obvious one for teams

Choice dynamics then are not necessarily about willpower or character – they’re about the system and context. Behavioural science offers us the sense that people don’t always make the best choice; they make the most available one. 

Our role, as leaders, designers, or teammates, is to shape conditions where the best/better/most appropriate choice feels like the most obvious one.

To help us navigate that alchemical mix of putting people in a team, there has been a proliferation of psychometric tools.

We’ll avoid a red-blue-yellow-green narrative here; and even a four-letter type. But some psychometric tools of this ilk are subject to hype and misuse, with the ‘science’ behind them seriously questioned.

They may seem to present a ‘silver bullet’ for team cohesion, but they often fail to cater to all aspects of the complex social environment that is the team and the individuals within it.

In our next and final feature, we’ll look at the inner world of people, cover the ‘Big Five’ and introduce an energy-related tool that helps us align with where we perform most naturally and effectively.

For now, our take on the cliché ‘Together Everyone Achieves More’ is that understanding the science of how we behave, choose and decide together means we’re more likely to achieve more.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}