HR professionals need to understand the concept of teamwork as they are often required to work as part of a team or manage a team. To do this they must understand the definition of a team, that being a group of individuals possessing complimentary skills, working towards and being committed to a common goal; having mutual accountability and responsibility for success; depending on individual contribution, in addition to working together to provide collaborative contributions. (Watson & Reissner, 2014).  There is also a sense that as a team they will achieve more than by working individually. (Mullins & Christy, 2013).   They should understand that for teams to function effectively there must be a balance of people, skills and attributes (Horn, 2012) and a willingness and ability for individuals to learn new skills (Watson & Reissner, 2014).   Clear communication regarding purpose and when individuals should make contributions is important in creating effective teams, (Belbin, 2018) with research suggesting that cohesive teams are more stable and have higher levels of productivity that less cohesive teams (Watson & Reissner, 2014).
An understanding of group dynamics is necessary,  Lewin noted that individuals take on specific roles and behaviours when they are in a group, and it is the effects of these behaviours and roles on the group individuals and the group itself that is defined as group dynamics. (Mindtools.com).   Various elements contribute towards team dynamics, those being the roles and relationships within the group; the influence they have over each other; how they communicate and co-ordinate their activities; how conflicts are resolved; how balance is focused between task and social issues and who leads. (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013)  If all of these elements are working well, the result will be positive dynamics, creating a culture of trust, support, collective decision making and increased creativity. Team members will hold each other accountable for actions and conflicts are resolved.  In contrast where these elements are not working well negative dynamics will be apparent, the success of the project will be undermined, lack of decision making/poor decision making will be present, poor communication, disruptive behaviour and distrust will be evident, all creating poor levels of morale and engagement. (Mindtools.com)  
Consideration must also be given to the differing phases that teams progress through, enabling HR professionals to anticipate future problems including poor dynamics.  Horn (2012) details Tuckmans theory naming the different phases as forming, storming, norming, performing and mourning.  During each phase Tuckman identifies that behaviours will change as will progression of the task.  Recently theorists added ‘Adjourning’ and ‘Reforming’ which consider how people will react once the group has parted and if early phases need to be revisited.  
Aligned with Lewin, Belbin created a Team role theory outlining nine roles, based on personality and team dynamics, all equally valuable in creating a high level functioning team as they each bring a unique quality.   Horn (2012) divides these nine roles into three distinct groups: doing; thinking; and relationships, also referred to as ‘task –related.’, individual –related’ and ‘team related’. (Watson & Reissner, 2014).  Whilst Belbin gives nine clear roles it is possible for individuals to take up more than one role within a team and that certain roles maybe be more predominant at differing phases from forming to mourning; the key is to maintain balance, cohesiveness and positive dynamics.  HR professionals must be mindful when considering the negative traits of the individual roles as if these are not managed effectively they will cause conflict within the team.
Another consideration is organisational politics.  There are arguably both good and bad politics within organisations, good politics can be described as influencing (People Management, 2003)  although more often than not political behaviour is seen as a negative.  In the negative context political behaviour is a sign that a team is dysfunctional, with individuals/teams taking a particular stance with an intention to attract some form of personal/team gain  (Horn, 2012) or acquire, develop, retain and use power. (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013).    Horn (2012) explains that it is common for individuals/teams to display political agendas and that it does exist with Huczynski and Buchanan (2013) identifying that the use of politics is more prevalent in situations where there is uncertainty, decisions are unstructured and complex and individuals/teams are competing against each other.    Due to the nature of change it is evident that political behaviour is more apparent at these periods within an organisation (People Management, 2003), a time of increased need for people to work together to achieve new organisational goals.   Horn (2012) recommends that there should be an awareness of the existence of political behaviour but advises managers to try and avoid it and make teams a “politic-free zone”.  In order to achieve this an awareness of the roles of allies, bedfellows, fence-sitters, opponents and adversaries and the impact their behaviour and role has on a team is essential. Rogers  (2007)  takes an opposing view, whilst acknowledging that political behaviour is more evident during periods of change, it is messy and that it does and will exist, he advises managers to embrace and engage with political behaviour in an aim to help people make sense of a situation.  He believes that elements of political behaviour form part of a formal strategies, processes and policies.  Rogers goes as far to say that senior management engage in political behaviour before, during and after the development of strategies and processes rather than acting in manner that depicts “unity of purpose”.   Owen (2017) also presents political skills as positive, highlighting that to be an effective leader such skills as influencing, negotiating, networking and flattery must be possessed.
Despite Rogers and Owens view political behaviour is largely seen as damaging to organisations.   The gain that is sought by individuals/team is often at the expense of organisational performance due to its negative effects ie lack of trust; a culture of blame and game playing.  This environment creates a risk averse approach to problem solving and often stops employees from performing to their best ability (People Management, 2003).   Some of the best teams operate in an environment where psychological safety exists, where people can share their thoughts and ideas without fear, where people are listened to and members show each other sensitivity. (Duhigg 2016) This would not exist in a team with negative politics.  Political behaviour is also linked to power and research has established a clear relationship between politics and bullying in competitive organisations undergoing rapid change. (Salin, 2003).  On this basis political behaviour in its negative form creates ineffective teams, who fail to provide valuable and successful outcomes for organisations.