I&#x27;ll quote further then..<p><i>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.</i><p>Overwhelmingly the key point of the article is &quot;In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs.&quot; It focuses heavily on emotional and psychological needs, not &quot;clear authority&quot; or &quot;clearly defined, proven effective and specialized roles,&quot; which is what the comment was trying to hijack this to emphasize (that stuff is <i>nowhere</i> in the article).<p>It&#x27;s true the previous comment did include a line on &quot;candid and constant communication,&quot; but that is quite overbroad and omits the key distinction of the <i>nature</i> of that communication. The key point of the article is that it is of a <i>tangential and&#x2F;or personal nature</i>, not just candid operational feedback. This is why I think it&#x27;s fair to criticize the comment as missing the whole point of the article.