Recognise the red flags of team dysfunction, understand the hidden causes, and use psychologically safe, leadership-led strategies to rebuild trust and high performance.
What Does a Toxic Team Look Like in Pharma or Tech?
In regulated, high-accountability environments like pharma and tech, toxic team culture can be subtle but deeply damaging. Here are the red flags to watch for:
- Lack of transparency across functions or between levels
- Exclusion from decision-making or knowledge silos
- Passive-aggressive communication and withheld feedback
- Power plays or credit hoarding
- Quiet quitting, presenteeism, or burnout
- Cross-functional breakdowns delaying launches or compliance
- Blame culture and fear of escalation
Toxic dynamics don’t just affect culture – they jeopardise timelines, customer outcomes, and innovation.
The Root Causes of Dysfunction in Scientific and Technical Teams
Dysfunctional teams are not born – they’re built over time, often unintentionally. According to Amy Edmondson1, a professor at Harvard Business School and an expert on psychological safety, the root of team dysfunction is often a breakdown in communication, intent, and leadership clarity.
In pharma and tech, some of the kay causes are:
- Leadership blind spots. These arise when leaders are unaware of how their actions – or lack of action – impact team morale and performance. Often, technically brilliant leaders may overlook the emotional and interpersonal aspects of team health, leading to disengagement or confusion among team members.
- Communication gaps are another common culprit. When teams lack regular, transparent, two-way communication, assumptions take hold. Information silos develop, and critical context is lost, affecting project alignment and execution.
- Perceived hypocrisy between stated values (e.g., “flat structure” or “collaborative culture”) and day-to-day behaviour erodes trust. When employees see a mismatch between what’s promised and what’s practiced, cynicism and disengagement follow.
- In matrix or project-based teams, a fear of conflict can be particularly damaging. Team members may avoid speaking up to preserve harmony, especially when roles or decision-making authority are ambiguous. This fear stifles innovation and prevents constructive feedback.
- A lack of recognition and psychological safety also undermines performance. When people feel invisible or fear backlash for mistakes or feedback, they withhold their ideas and effort. Recognition, although cost-free, is often overlooked—and its absence diminishes motivation.
- Finally, a credit scarcity mindset emerges in high-pressure environments where advancement feels tied to individual recognition. Instead of collaborating, team members may compete for praise, undermining trust and shared ownership.
Often, dysfunction grows not from ill will, but from silence, misunderstanding, and leadership inaction.
How Toxic Teams Hurt Performance
Toxic culture in pharma and tech industries has a measurable impact on performance and business outcomes. It leads to project delays, increases compliance risks, causes the loss of top talent, and contributes to low morale. Perhaps most concerning, it stifles innovation – often the lifeblood of technical and scientific organisations.
These issues frequently begin subtly, manifesting through unclear expectations or a lack of recognition. Without timely intervention, these seemingly minor cracks in communication and trust can snowball into systemic dysfunction that undermines entire teams and business units (like unclear expectations or no recognition) and snowball quickly without intervention.
The Role of Leadership in Toxic Teams
Amy Edmondson reminds us1: “Complaints are not curiosity.” Teams thrive not on grievance but on understanding. Effective leaders:
- Create psychological safety
- Encourage learning conversations
- Clarify purpose and expectations
- Recognise contributions and progress
- Use a “we are allies” mindset to foster collaboration
In complex ecosystems like pharma and tech, leaders must proactively shape communication and culture. Our article on coaching underperforming teams expands on this further.
If you are stepping into a new management role, our Management Essentials Programme provides managers with practical tools to help manage, inspire their teams and drive high performance. It covers six key areas of management: transitioning into leadership, communication, performance management, team motivation, coaching, and time management.
Fixing Toxic Culture: Research-Based Solutions
A new approach to team effectiveness, based on McKinsey’s research2, reveals that effective teams depend on multiple factors including trust, communication, and an understanding of the team context. Merely upskilling a leader isn’t enough. Organisations need to focus on creating structural clarity within teams, using diagnostics to uncover blind spots, and ensuring alignment between team behaviours and team type – whether that’s a cycling, relay, or rowing archetype.
To perform at a high level, teams must prioritise four key behaviours. First is trust, both cognitive (based on reliability and competence) and affective (based on care and connection). Second is communication that is clear, two-way, and suited to the team’s purpose. Third is innovative thinking, which enables adaptability and continuous improvement. Finally, decision making must be defined and transparent, with clear roles and processes that reduce friction and accelerate progress.
These four drivers, when developed intentionally, can predict up to 76% of performance outcomes in terms of efficiency, stakeholder results, and innovation.
In times of uncertainty and change, the strength and cohesion of a team become more important than ever. Our Harnessing the Power of Team in Uncertainty and Change programme helps teams come together, build trust, and focus on collective resilience and adaptability.
Building Healthy Team Dynamics
Healthier teams build a shared commitment to success that transcends individual goals. Instead of focusing solely on personal KPIs or recognition, these teams rally around a common purpose and work collectively to achieve it. A sense of unity and mutual accountability emerges, strengthening both culture and outcomes.
Collaboration and continuous feedback are central. Healthy teams establish robust feedback loops and embrace conflict as a source of growth, not disruption. They regularly align on goals, roles, and responsibilities, reducing confusion and enabling more seamless execution. These behaviours are particularly crucial in virtual settings, high-interdependency environments, or newly formed teams with limited shared history—common scenarios in today’s project-driven pharma and tech workplaces.
According to the CIPD3, team performance is key to organisational sustainability and success. When people work well together, they often go above and beyond their individual responsibilities to achieve shared goals. However, poorly functioning teams risk falling into cycles of conflict and dysfunction.
Leaders and people managers must focus on the attributes that create effective team collaboration:
- psychological safety
- team cohesion
- shared thinking
- information sharing
- team reflection
All of these can be developed through well-planned interventions such as team-building activities, teamwork training, regular debriefings, and clear goal setting.
They also take time to reflect, celebrate wins, and learn from mistakes. This reflection creates humility and improvement, ensuring teams evolve together over time.
Tools like the DARE model (Deciders, Advisers, Recommenders, Executors) help clarify ownership, reduce ambiguity, and make decision-making more inclusive and efficient. These role-definition models are especially powerful in complex environments where matrixed accountability can blur responsibilities.
Storytelling and vulnerability cultivate affective trust. By opening up personally, team members connect beyond roles, enabling a deeper foundation of empathy and mutual respect that elevates team performance, build affective trust that unlocks performance.
When to Intervene vs When to Restructure
Intervene when:
- There’s confusion or conflict but clear willingness to improve
- Dysfunction is behavioural or systemic, not toxic at the core
Restructure when:
- Trust is irreparably broken across leadership levels
- Team identity is lost or legacy toxicity blocks progress
- Multiple interventions have failed
Frequently Asked Questions About Toxic Teams
From Toxicity to Trust – The Leadership Imperative
Toxic team dynamics don’t fix themselves – they quietly erode trust, performance, and innovation until the damage becomes systemic. But the good news is this: dysfunction is not destiny. With the right leadership mindset, psychologically safe interventions, and evidence-based frameworks, even the most fractured teams can recover.
In fast-paced, high-stakes environments like pharma and tech, rebuilding team health isn’t a “nice to have” – it’s a business-critical priority. Whether you’re facing early signs of disengagement or entrenched dysfunction, the first step is awareness. The next is intentional, informed action.