During the recent FIFA World Cup, I watched Portugal play when the camera zoomed in on a familiar face in the VIP stand: Pepe. The commentator described him as one of the greatest defenders of his generation, and rightly so. 
For over two decades, Pepe won league titles, Champions League trophies, and international honours, played for some of the world’s biggest clubs and remained competitive long after many of his contemporaries had retired. 
Yet my immediate reaction was not admiration. It was disbelief. I remembered the confrontations, reckless challenges, arguments with opponents, and moments when his aggression overshadowed his brilliance. Fair or not, those memories came first.
That moment reminded me of an old debate: should greatness be measured solely by achievement, or does behaviour matter too?
In organisations, the answer matters because talent alone does not build great teams. Behaviour determines whether talent becomes an asset or a liability.
Most companies invest enormous effort in finding talented people—evaluating qualifications, experience, and expertise. But organisations are not simply collections of stars. They are communities working toward a shared goal, and behaviour often determines whether that goal is achieved.
Research consistently shows that workplace culture has a significant impact on organisational success. A SHRM study found that nearly one in five employees left their jobs because of workplace culture, with turnover costs estimated at $223 billion over five years in the United States. MIT Sloan Management Review similarly concluded that toxic culture was the strongest predictor of employee attrition, outweighing compensation.
Most leaders have seen this problem first-hand. There is often someone who consistently exceeds targets but quietly damages morale—a high performer whose behaviour discourages collaboration, silences different viewpoints, or drives good colleagues away. On paper, such employees appear indispensable. In reality, they may become the organisation’s most expensive performers because their behaviour erodes the value they create.
The problem is that organisations rarely measure these hidden costs. They do not track how many people stop contributing ideas, how many hesitate to challenge poor decisions, or how many eventually leave because conflict has become normal. Financial statements cannot capture innovations that never materialise because people no longer feel safe speaking up. These invisible losses affect productivity, retention, customer experience, and reputation.
When specialised talent is scarce, businesses often feel compelled to retain high performers at any cost. This is particularly true in Bangladesh, where organisations compete for a limited pool of experienced professionals. The result is an unhealthy tolerance for behaviour that weakens the very teams companies are trying to strengthen.
Many leaders justify it with a simple logic: exceptional performance excuses poor behaviour. But culture compounds. One toxic employee can reshape an entire team’s behaviour. Over time, people adapt to conflict, trust deteriorates, and collaboration becomes transactional. Eventually, the cost of protecting one star exceeds the value of that individual’s contribution.
Sport offers a powerful lesson. The most successful teams are not always the ones with the greatest collection of stars. A classic example is Real Madrid’s Galácticos era, when the club assembled Zidane, Beckham, Ronaldo, and Figo—arguably four of the finest footballers of their generation. Despite extraordinary individual brilliance, the team fell short of the dominance many expected.
History is full of talented teams that failed because chemistry never developed, while less celebrated teams exceeded expectations through trust, discipline, and a shared culture. The same principle applies in business.
The hardest test is leadership courage. Many organisations hesitate to confront toxic behaviour when it comes from high performers, fearing the loss of expertise or short-term results. But culture is shaped less by what leaders say than by what they tolerate. A beautifully written values statement means very little if exceptions are routinely made for star performers.
A brilliant colleague who regularly undermines others may contribute less to long-term success than someone with slightly less talent who consistently helps everyone around them perform better.
Of course, organisations must also avoid another mistake: confusing cultural fit with cultural conformity. Healthy organisations need diversity of thought. They need people who disagree respectfully, challenge assumptions, and introduce fresh perspectives. They do not need behaviour that violates shared values.
Cultural fit means embracing principles such as integrity, accountability, professionalism, and respect. Cultural conformity means demanding sameness. Strong organisations pursue the former while resisting the latter.
This distinction is becoming increasingly important as employers rethink how they recruit, evaluate, and promote people. Many organisations still place overwhelming emphasis on technical capability while paying too little attention to behaviour. Skills can usually be developed through training and experience. Attitudes and behaviours are far more difficult to change.
That is why leading employers increasingly use behavioural interviews, psychometric assessments, and emotional intelligence evaluations—not simply to understand what candidates can do, but how they work with others.
The challenge, however, does not end with hiring. Organisations need systems that reinforce the behaviours they value. Performance evaluations should measure not only what employees achieve but also how they achieve it. Tools such as 360-degree feedback, peer reviews, and team engagement scores provide a far more complete picture of someone’s contribution.
Equally important is what organisations choose to reward. When promotions and recognition are based solely on individual results, employees quickly learn what truly matters. If collaboration, integrity, and respect are genuine priorities, they must be reflected in how success is recognised.
The hardest test is leadership courage. Many organisations hesitate to confront toxic behaviour when it comes from high performers, fearing the loss of expertise or short-term results. But culture is shaped less by what leaders say than by what they tolerate. A beautifully written values statement means very little if exceptions are routinely made for star performers.
The goal is not to build teams that think alike. Great organisations need people who challenge one another, contribute different perspectives, and raise collective performance. The real objective is to create an environment where talented individuals make everyone around them better.
In football, as in business, lasting success is rarely built on individual brilliance alone. It is built when exceptional talent thrives within a culture of trust, accountability, and shared purpose.
Perhaps that is the question every organisation should ask more often—not simply whether someone can perform, but whether their presence helps everyone else perform better. That is what truly builds great teams