In this episode of the Agile Skills Library, Paul Goddard and Geoff Watts share 3D Team Dynamics — a practical observation tool for spotting the behaviours that shape team conversations in real time.
You’ll learn how to categorise what you see and hear into Developing, Detailing, and Disruptive behaviours (each with four clear sub-behaviours), how to tally patterns without turning it into judgement or “naming and shaming,” and how to play the data back to a team in a way that creates insight rather than defensiveness. They also introduce a bonus layer: a Team Heat Map for noticing physical movement and airtime distribution during workshops and meetings.
Perfect for agile coaches, Scrum Masters, team facilitators, and leaders who want a simple, structured way to diagnose group dynamics — and help teams have braver, healthier conversations.
Paul Goddard: Hello to all our lovely followers, listeners, and audience. Welcome back to the Agile Skills Library with me, Paul Goddard, and my co-host and good mate, Geoff Watts. Hello Geoff.
Geoff Watts: Hello!
Paul: Welcome back, everyone. And if you’re new to the podcast, you won’t yet know how good this is — but trust us, it’s amazing.
Not only do you get a short, practical snippet of Geoff and my experience with a technique, you also get downloadable content so you can actually try the technique yourself. Stay with us right to the end to get the details.
Today, Geoff, we’re going to talk about something we created called 3D Team Dynamics. Do you remember that?
Geoff: I do. I love it.
Paul: I was thinking this morning about where it came from, and I think it was born out of the number of times you and I were asked to go into organisations and observe and assess a team.
And that still happens a lot. We get called in to review a team and see how things are currently working.
Geoff: Not just agile teams either. I’ve run this with boards, directors, C-suite… it’s fascinating.
Paul: It really is. It’s a fascinating social experiment.
So we’ll explain the model and how it’s set up — and yes, at the end you’ll get a chance to download something you can use straight away.
Let’s put us in that situation: we’re called into a team environment — a workshop, meeting, or session in progress — and Geoff and I are observing. We’d typically set up a flip chart at the back of the room and start making notes.
It’s a way of observing behaviours in the room and categorising them into one of three types. And, conveniently, all three start with D:
As observers, we’re listening for examples of these behaviours — things we see and hear — then we tally them.
Paul: The first category is Developing actions — behaviours that help a group begin and grow a conversation.
We split Developing actions into four types:
This is someone offering new information, a suggestion, an idea — a “unit of currency” the group can work with next.
For example, in a retrospective someone might say:
Geoff: Yeah — it can be an idea as well as an event. Just putting something into the space.
This is when someone tries to include another person in the discussion.
For example:
This is when someone acknowledges or reflects emotion in the room.
For example:
This is when someone takes an offer and adds to it — even if it’s just validating and extending it.
For example:
Paul: As we observe, Geoff and I would tally how often we hear each of these behaviours — just simple dots on a flip chart.
And if possible, we’d also capture specific examples (quotes or moments) to play back to the group later.
Sometimes we’d pair on this: one person tallying, the other looking for clear examples.
Paul: The second category is Detailing — behaviours that add depth and clarity to the conversation. Again, four types:
People trying to find a better solution by negotiating options.
For example:
Asking for more detail so the group properly understands what’s been offered.
For example:
Healthy conflict: different viewpoints, constructive disagreement, exploring options.
Geoff: It’s not arguing as a bad thing — it’s recognising there are different points of view.
More direct pushing for justification or deeper explanation — usually targeted at an individual rather than the whole group.
For example:
Paul: So those are Developing and Detailing. Now the third category is more delicate.
Geoff: Not every meeting is positive, so we also look for Disruptive behaviours. We picked four common ones:
Someone leaves the conversation — explicitly or implicitly.
It can be dramatic (walking out), or subtle (mentally checking out: “What’s the point? I’m done with this.”)
Preventing progress — sometimes physically (standing in front of a flip chart), but often verbally.
For example:
Not giving people air time, talking over them, leaving them out, or misrepresenting their views.
Passive-aggressive or personal digs — not constructive critique.
For example:
Paul: And we’ll be honest: as observers, there’s an element of judgement here — especially with things like sniping and detaching. You’re reading the room, watching reactions, sensing impact. There’s subjectivity.
Which is why what comes next matters: how we use the data.
Paul: Typically, at the end of the session we’d turn the flip chart around and reveal the 3D Team Dynamics appraisal:
We try to be objective: “This is what we heard. We might have it wrong, but when we heard this, we categorised it as an offer / clarification / blocking behaviour.”
Early on, we kept quotes anonymous. But sometimes clients asked us to name who said what — and in those cases, people usually knew and could even timestamp themselves.
It depends on psychological safety and what the group wants.
Geoff: In my experience, senior leadership teams often want to go there more directly — they want to act braver and more transparent. A neutral facilitator calling it out can be a good first step.
Paul: The point isn’t to produce “perfect” numbers. We’re not expecting evenly distributed behaviours.
The value is the team asking:
For example, no disruptive behaviours might sound good… but it could also mean the team is too polite and avoiding healthy challenge.
Geoff: Exactly — it’s easy to drift from challenging into sniping when energy is low. It doesn’t mean someone’s a bad team member. And if there’s loads of empathising and including but no debating or clarifying, that could be a sign we’re not doing enough healthy conflict.
And your point about capturing the quote word-for-word is key: not in a judgy way, but so it’s clear it happened.
Paul: There’s also a nuance here — a fourth dimension we sometimes add, not on the same flip chart. We call it the Team Heat Map.
It captures different data based on observation:
It’s crude and not meant to be judgmental — but it can be enlightening.
People often don’t realise someone left the room, or how static some members are, or how much airtime is dominated by one or two voices.
And again, equal airtime isn’t the goal — sometimes the quiet person contributes less but when they do it’s “gold dust.”
It’s about helping the team see their pattern.
Geoff: I’m sure there are AI tools that can do this more objectively now.
Paul: Far better than we can.
Geoff: But yeah — I love this exercise. Teams find it uncomfortable… but they love it.
Paul: It’s a great tool if you have co-facilitators, if you want feedback on facilitation, or if you want a team to become more aware of how they interact.
We’ll share downloadable content — a nice canvas you can enlarge, print, and use in the room.
As always: have a play, let us know what you think, and we hope it expands your range as a facilitator and coach.
Geoff: Nice one. Be brave, give it a go, let us know what you think — and like, subscribe, and all that jazz. Until next time.
Paul: Cheers, all.
