Only if you assume that dysfunction is either a steady state and does not fluctuate, or that there exists two binary states of function and dysfunction, and nothing in between, or both.
If either of those are true, then it's possible to be on a great team (which is itself relative), and still either have aspects that are dysfunctional, or periods where it goes into dysfunction.
> Sure you can have disagreements. So then you all present your arguments figure out which way forward is the best with as little ego thrown in as possible and move on.
Sometimes, when that decision keeps coming back to bite you, and possibly you in particular, you feel the need to keep bringing it up, so others know it's an ongoing problem. That can be seen by others as someone not letting a decision go.
Does that engineering choice that resulted in a somewhat frail system keep coming back to bite you? Congratulations, now you're presented with keeping your mouth shut and just fixing it every time it breaks, or speaking up when it breaks so that people know it's a continual problem, and risk others thinking you are just complaining more, and promoting team dysfunction, or some happy medium, but where is that medium?
This is why it is important to keep meeting minutes and do a post mortem in case something goes wrong. Not to lay blame but to be able to figure out how a wrong decision was reached so that similar decisions can be avoided in the future.
Re. whether teams are steady state or not:
I don't think every team can be fixed and I'm pretty sure that a single toxic new hire can potentially derail any successful and well oiled team.
Even so, many teams that do not perform well can usually be salvaged and teams that already work well are best left alone (and should do their own hiring if the org allows it).
> By definition it can't.
Only if you assume that dysfunction is either a steady state and does not fluctuate, or that there exists two binary states of function and dysfunction, and nothing in between, or both.
If either of those are true, then it's possible to be on a great team (which is itself relative), and still either have aspects that are dysfunctional, or periods where it goes into dysfunction.
> Sure you can have disagreements. So then you all present your arguments figure out which way forward is the best with as little ego thrown in as possible and move on.
Sometimes, when that decision keeps coming back to bite you, and possibly you in particular, you feel the need to keep bringing it up, so others know it's an ongoing problem. That can be seen by others as someone not letting a decision go.
Does that engineering choice that resulted in a somewhat frail system keep coming back to bite you? Congratulations, now you're presented with keeping your mouth shut and just fixing it every time it breaks, or speaking up when it breaks so that people know it's a continual problem, and risk others thinking you are just complaining more, and promoting team dysfunction, or some happy medium, but where is that medium?