Read the original post on Lindsey's blog.

We’ve all been on those teams that just worked: Everyone pulled their weight, stellar work got done, and you had fun doing it. And, of course, we’ve been on teams that were the exact opposite.

There’s a reason we call it “team chemistry.” Certain elements react, and the combination can be wonderful … or explosive. People either love or loathe working with a team. Those feelings about teamwork can go all the way back to middle school, when your lab partner did exactly none of the work but still got credit. (Or maybe that was just mine…) But often in the workplace, we don’t get to pick our teammates, which is why recognizing how to work with different personalities is essential.

I found helpful tips in the following articles on understanding and creating team chemistry.

FIRST, UNDERSTAND YOUR TEAM PERSONALITIES

“The team brainstormed strategies for accommodating individuals’ differing styles and taking advantage of the value that each brought. A month after we met with them, members indicated they had been actively hypothesizing about one another’s styles and were developing a better understanding of the team. Even more important, they reported a greater sense of shared purpose, an environment that better enabled them to contribute at their highest levels, and an improved ability to accomplish goals.” — Harvard Business Review.

IF YOU’RE THE LEADER, SET THE TONE

“Often team leaders assume that mature people will resolve conflict on their own. If that were true, however, there would be no divorce, separations or wars. In high-performance teams differences are addressed quickly and directly. This requires a level of maturity in team members. When people believe that they are trusted and others have their back, disputes can be resolved. Team leaders that focus on competition versus cooperation never achieve outstanding results.” — Forbes.

PLAN MORE FACE TIME

“Organizations have employees scattered all over the world. Often, to save money and time, they insist on meeting virtually rather than in person. In contrast, Olympic-caliber teams realize how important it is to get to know each other face to face, break bread outside of work, and build chemistry. … We are human beings, wired for in-person contact. Even if it costs a bit more money and time, Olympic-caliber teams need to make time to bring everyone together, spend time outside of work getting to know one another and build true chemistry. Otherwise, trust won’t be as high as it otherwise could be.” — Entrepreneur.

CAN AN ALGORITHM FIGURE OUT THE OPTIMAL TEAM?

“Inspired by the techniques used by online dating sites, which are continually refining how they match people to improve outcomes, Saberr has arrived at a formula that predicts whether a team will succeed or fail based on individuals’ responses to a profiling questionnaire. One of the qualities Saberr measures through its questionnaires is an individual’s ability to tolerate an alternative set of values in their colleagues. The ‘coaching’ solution helps shape and improve that tolerance, by prompting changes in awareness, thinking and behaviour.” — The Guardian.

CONSIDER TWO TEAM DYNAMICS FROM A GOOGLE STUDY

“If you are given a choice between the serious-minded Team A or the free-flowing Team B, you should probably opt for Team B. Team A may be filled with smart people, all optimized for peak individual efficiency. But the group’s norms discourage equal speaking; there are few exchanges of the kind of personal information that lets teammates pick up on what people are feeling or leaving unsaid. There’s a good chance the members of Team A will continue to act like individuals once they come together, and there’s little to suggest that, as a group, they will become more collectively intelligent. In contrast, on Team B, people may speak over one another, go on tangents and socialize instead of remaining focused on the agenda. The team may seem inefficient to a casual observer. But all the team members speak as much as they need to. They are sensitive to one another’s moods and share personal stories and emotions. While Team B might not contain as many individual stars, the sum will be greater than its parts.” — New York Times Magazine.