Sound outcomes come from spirited discussion. You can usually tell how productive a meeting will be before it’s halfway over by paying attention to who speaks up, who stays quiet, and how the group builds on the conversation.
It’s been a minute since I formally studied organizational development, but my interest in the complexities of team dynamics came roaring back while listening to Ahmed El Aawar’s talk on team coaching and organizational transformation.
The big takeaway for me was simple: the dynamics shape the decision itself. They influence what gets surfaced, what gets missed, and how strong the commitment is afterward. In other words, how you decide affects what you decide...and whether it works.
One of the ideas explored in the session was the Team Dynamics Profile (TDP), which looks at how people interact when they work toward a decision. The focus is on the role someone takes on in the moment, regardless of personality or seniority.
The model identifies four roles that commonly show up in team conversations:
Move (typically the catalyst), which provides direction
Oppose, which questions or challenges
Follow, which helps create alignment
Reframe, which adds perspective and context
Strong teams rely on all four roles.
Opposition is often the most misunderstood. Questioning or pushback is easy to interpret as friction when viewed in isolation. More often, it signals that someone sees a risk, a gap, or an implication that hasn’t been fully examined yet. When that input is met with curiosity, the quality of the conversation improves, and the decision itself gets stronger.
The most effective leaders I work with aren’t attached to a single role. They adjust based on what the team needs in that moment. They notice when momentum is required, when perspective would help, when alignment matters, and when challenge will sharpen the outcome.
This is where emotional intelligence extends beyond individual self-awareness and becomes something collective. It shifts attention from how an individual behaves to how the team thinks together when it matters most.
Here's an example to make this concept a bit more concrete. A head of finance may naturally take a directive role within their own team, setting clear timelines and reinforcing standards. That same leader, sitting with the executive team, may shift into a different role. Instead of advocating for or against an idea, they might offer historical context or financial perspective that helps the group evaluate the decision more clearly.
Same person but in a different setting, contributing differently.
This lens also reframes a common leadership concern. Many leaders worry that focusing on culture pulls attention away from performance. Performance and culture are shaped in the same moments: when teams examine ideas, question assumptions, and decide how to move forward together.
Teams that struggle often show familiar patterns. Some prioritize harmony and spend little time moving toward action. Others move quickly and leave little room for questioning or reflection. In both cases, the issue is imbalance rather than effort or intent.
High-functioning teams aim for thoughtful action. The quality of a decision improves when the right perspectives are in the room asking questions, working through the details, and pressure-testing ideas before anything is finalized.
In my experience, I believe the following interconnected points to be true:
Healthy organizations strengthen and grow over time.
Strong leaders turn conversation into decisions and action.
Emotionally intelligent leaders welcome varying perspectives and encourage teams to question assumptions, examine trade-offs, and sharpen decisions before acting.
When teams start paying attention to the roles at play and use them intentionally, decision-making improves, conversations become more honest, and outcomes are more durable.
Good decisions take shape when the right perspectives are present at the moments that matter most.