There’s a structural reason small product teams work. It’s not the stand-up, the retro, the OKR, or the slide deck about the Roadmap that gets updated once a quarter for the executives. The real struts and rivets that hold it together live underneath all of that—quiet, informal, and rarely acknowledged. It comes from something economists call “club goods,” though the label sounds colder than the thing itself.

A club good is a resource that everyone inside the group can use without diminishing it, and that outsiders can’t access no matter how loudly they demand visibility or alignment. You don’t buy into it. You don’t inherit it from the org chart. You participate your way into it; mountaineers share route knowledge, musicians share timing and instinct, families share shorthand. Product teams share context and trust—two substances that can’t be announced into existence and can’t be transferred through a memo. You accumulate them in the course of doing the work together.

The Transform Sub is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Spend long enough in a small team—a tight, productive one, not a shuffled-together committee wearing the same jerseys—and you start to notice this invisible substrate. It’s in the way a designer finishes a sentence an engineer started because the conversation began three weeks ago. It’s in the way someone says, “we already tested that,” and everyone knows the story. It’s in the way the group moves with a kind of shared rhythm, like a band that doesn’t need a count-off anymore. These are the club goods, the quiet inheritance of collaboration. They’re non-rivalrous—my understanding doesn’t reduce yours—and deeply excludable. If you’re not inside the work, you don’t get them. And no executive title or Red, Yellow, Green status meeting will grant you access.

But every shared resource has a predator. Ego. Loss of nerve. Unaddressed sleights. Untended blockers. The silent temptation to coast on the work of others. Uncountered entropy. A product team doesn’t fall apart all at once. It dissolves one missed commitment, one unspoken disagreement, one “just this once” exception at a time. The club goods degrade molecule by molecule.

Because the system is human, the corrections are human too. Teams run on a set of soft, self-regulating principles—curiosity, craft, intellectual honesty, generosity of interpretation. Habits of attention. A little bit of pride. The desire not to let each other down. They also rely on something less glamorous: a leader who protects the perimeter, who keeps the team small and stable enough for context to accumulate, who holds the problem steady long enough for the team to build a shared pulse. Someone who honors the rituals of learning instead of treating them as administrative overhead; who models the kind of honesty that others take their cues from; who leaves space for actual disagreement instead of choreographed consensus; who allows the team to write its own narrative. These aren’t directives—they’re environmental conditions. They create the soil in which club goods grow.

But even with all of that, there is another principle, rarely named and even more rarely understood: shame.

Not the cruel kind. Not the kind managers wield when they don’t know how to lead. The quiet social kind that has kept human groups functional since long before product management existed. The small, nearly invisible signal that says, “You’re drifting. Come back.” Shame, used well, is nothing more than the soft boundary that keeps the heat inside the house. It’s the weather stripping of team life—unglamorous, unnoticed, and absolutely essential.

You see it most clearly with context. Context is the first and most fragile club good. It forms through the slow accretion of artifacts, conversations, failures, recoveries, discoveries, and gut-checks. When someone begins to opt out of that—skips research, doesn’t read the brief, shows up unprepared—the team doesn’t need a policy to correct them. There’s just a small shift in the room. A glance. A pause. A gentle feeling of “this is not how we do things.” Shame doing its quiet job. Not to punish, but to coax them back into the current.

The same thing happens with trust, the club good that makes speed possible. Speed, in real teams, isn’t about moving fast; it’s about deciding fast because you’re certain about each other. You tell the truth. You show your work. You don’t ghost the hard parts. When trust cracks—when someone sandbags, disappears, or spins the narrative—the response isn’t theatrical. A cloud passes over. There’s a silence that lasts an extra beat. It’s a nudge, not a slap. Shame again, small and corrective, reinforcing the larger principle: we rely on one another here.

Then there’s dissent, the WD-40 of actual product work. Teams that can’t argue their way toward the truth are forced to lie to themselves about what’s real. But dissent only works if it happens in the room where decisions are made, where things need to come apart before they go back together. When someone nods through the meeting and expresses their real concerns afterward, the team reacts almost instinctively. “Why didn’t you say that earlier?” It’s not anger; it’s disappointment at a missed opportunity. It’s shame as hinge—the little piece of hardware that swings the person back into the space where their voice matters.

Joint attention may be the most underrated club good of all. A team has to look at the same information at the same time to have any chance of distinguishing signal from noise. When someone floats an intuition untethered to the shared data, the group pulls them back with a gentle, “Where are you seeing that?” Again, shame is not the point; the point is keeping everyone looking through the same window.

And then there’s craft, the quiet pride that shapes everything from the crispness of a problem statement to the feel of a prototype. Craft exists because of an internal reputation economy. People know who raises the floor. They know who makes the work sharper, tighter, better. When someone slips into mediocrity, the team doesn’t need to shame them publicly. The subtle atmospheric shift is enough. A small social correction: we don’t do sloppy here.

I want to be clear: shame is not a noble force. It’s not the engine of a great team. It’s not something you put in a leadership training course and ask people to “lean into.” But it is part of the ecology. It’s a negative feedback loop that keeps the positive loops—context, trust, dissent, attention, craft—from unraveling. Used properly, it’s temporary, specific, and private. It doesn’t wound or exclude. It simply steers. It draws the drifting member back into the orbit of the team. It says, without saying: we built something valuable together; don’t float away from it.

There is a kind of shame that destroys teams, of course—the public humiliation, the performance-management theater, the wielding of power to belittle. That shame is toxic and lazy and cowardly. It breaks the club goods instead of protecting them. But the quiet version—the one that operates at the level of glance and tone and small social pressure—that version is part of how a team keeps itself honest. It’s the immune system of small groups.

We don’t like to admit this. We’d prefer to believe that high-performing teams run on pure craft and goodwill, that context accumulates naturally, that trust is simply the result of competent people doing competent work. We want the mechanics to be clean and aspirational. But the truth is messier. Small teams work because they produce club goods that can’t be manufactured—context, trust, dissent, attention, craft—and because they generate just enough social friction to keep those goods from dissipating. Not through policy. Not through performance reviews. Through the ancient, uncomfortable machinery of human groups policing their own boundaries.

You can’t put this in the handbook. You can’t train people to deploy shame “appropriately.” It’s actually difficult to use the word at all. But it’s there, doing its work, whether we acknowledge it or not. And the teams that pretend it doesn’t exist, the ones that mistake radical transparency for honesty, or psychological safety for the absence of all discomfort, tend to drift. They lose the weather stripping. The heat escapes. And eventually, no amount of process can restore what held us together; the small, recurring choice to keep each other inside the work.