Ask "What makes a good team?" and you'll get an enormous variety of answers — even from members of the same team, the perspectives rarely align.

When I was coaching an American football team, the organization's purpose seemed startlingly clear to me: nothing exists beyond "winning every game." Or so I thought. But when I conducted 1-on-1s with every member (over 100 people), motivations that had nothing to do with "winning" surfaced:

• "To raise my standing in the team"
• "My relationship with my teammates"
• "I admire [player X]"

Similarly, asking the same question in a work team typically produces answers like:

• "Coming to work feels enjoyable"
• "Communication flows smoothly"
• "We respect each other"

— responses that don't necessarily connect to the outcomes the team is trying to achieve. This revealed to me the gap: everyone can define a "good team," but aligning those definitions is hard.

The origin of teams

Tracing a team back to its root, the original purpose should be "achieving returns beyond individual capacity + distributing risk."

For example, the "joint-stock company" as an organizational form was born during the Age of Exploration to execute voyages (impossible for any individual alone) and distribute risk and return. That's the clearest example.

Shouldn't "whether a team is good or not" be discussed simply in terms of the magnitude of the return that team produces?

What does NOT indicate a good team

From management perspectives, employee perspectives, investor perspectives — the various stakeholders connected to a team all have different motivations, and many received opinions float around about "what makes a good team." Most of these are "common characteristics observed in teams that are already generating return" — but they are not necessarily indicators of a good team. Let me give some examples.

1 / High psychological safety

In a psychologically safe environment, people believe that if they make a mistake, they won't be punished or judged poorly by others. They feel comfortable asking for help or information without fearing they'll be seen as a nuisance or embarrassed. This belief emerges when people genuinely trust and respect each other, and it creates confidence that on this team, you can speak up without being put in an awkward position, rejected, or punished.

The idea that you can perform at your real capacity in a psychologically safe environment is entirely right. Google's own internal research concluded that showing respect and consideration for others is likely a driver of team productivity. Respect for others is genuinely important — no doubt about it.

But even if members perform at their best, there's no value if that doesn't translate into return. I have no objection to the importance of psychological safety — but I feel discomfort when it's discussed as an end in itself, in isolation.

2 / A grand vision

A vision that can't be achieved has no value.

"Eliminating poverty from the world" is a wonderful vision — but what actually has value is specific actions that reduce poverty.

3 / Talented, diverse people have been hired

Even if the talent is assembled, and even if each person brings diverse strengths, there's no value in the team if those strengths aren't deployed and converted into return.

What IS a good team?

A team with clearly defined return, that continues to generate that return.

The quality of a team should be discussed first and foremost in terms of return. A leader who builds a team has, I believe, just one job: "define the return quickly, explain it repeatedly, and never stop checking."

At the same time, a team is a "gathering of people," so it inevitably has a "community" dimension. The three factors above are all talking about the community. Unfortunately, community doesn't reproduce. It's unique to that time, that place, those people.

The way I see it: the three factors are results, not causes. "We worked to build the optimal community for generating return, and as a result achieved high psychological safety." "As our ambitions grew, our vision became grander." These are consequence, not driver.

"Let's define our mission and values!" — this exercise rarely works on its own. It's nothing more than articulating the community dimension of the team. Isn't it something you do to strengthen the community aspect of a team that's already generating return?

Can Mercari's success be reproduced?

Paradoxically, when you're bringing new people into a team that's already generating return, the question of "can they fit the community and pursue return?" becomes enormous. Mercari — showing growth rates rare in Japan's startup world — publicly states that it hires for culture fit (value alignment).

This makes sense: Mercari, as a team generating consistent return, has already built a strong "village." Both "the skillset to contribute to return" and "the ability to perform in the established village" are live issues — which is why value alignment matters so much in hiring, and there's genuine rationality in that approach.

But if a newly formed team mimics Mercari's hiring approach, can they form a "good team"? Can they reproduce Mercari's growth? I have serious doubts. Before thinking about hiring methodology, isn't purely pursuing return more important?

Articulating mission and values is "a ritual for verbalizing and reinforcing the core competency of a team that is already optimizing for return — and sharpening it further." Important, yes — but at the true zero-to-one starting point, raw action toward the business and return growth itself should be the driver that makes the team good.

In closing: happiness is determined by "rate of growth"

The other day I picked up a magazine and noticed this comment from comedian-entrepreneur Nishino:

Nishino: I think true "happiness" is determined not by quality but by rate of growth. Interviewer: Rate of growth? Nishino: Yes. For example, if someone who normally scores 95 on a test gets a 96, they're not that happy. But if someone who normally scores 0 gets a 50, they'd be jumping for joy. Quality-wise, 96 is clearly higher — but if you asked which person is happier, it might be the one who got 50.

A team with fundamentally high happiness maintains a high rate of growth. Conversely, there are many cases where a low rate of growth results in declining team happiness. In those cases, trying to raise team happiness through community means alone — without generating return — risks ultimately making both the team and the customers it's trying to serve unhappy. That's something worth keeping deep in mind.