That's why we have a bus driver
. I'd disagree that they are a team; if they were then your points would be very fitting to that situation (we are a team - if you don't want to contribute to achieving the team's goals or is not able to do so in a manner deemed adequate by the other team members, then you shouldn't be on the team), but I don't think there is anything that connects their goals universally.
It's more like a business relation based on a contract of means - I scratch your back if you scratch mine, but if I don't want to scratch your back, you should not expect me to. There's no common goal, but only a tit-for-tat system. In a family or with friends there is a common goal, but at a workplace or in a public arrangement there is not.
It's probably a very weak contract even at that, but they are only connected together by means without any will. It might even be how work manages to get done. The ineffective is parted with - not picked up and improved. In a family or with friends it is tolerated, because they share a common goal; they want to get better together, not alone, but only together. Their interest in the welfare of the other as well as themselves takes precedence over any interest in an individual alone and they become a unit, a team, and they want for the unit, the team, to get better. Thus, the survival of the team become more important than the survival of any member alone and the team tries to keep its members and furnish them with resources and general success.
In this setting that the OP describes (or generally in LFR) there is not any general will between the players binding them together - merely the contract between individuals without common will based on a functional relationship. I scratch your back if you scratch mine, and if you don't scratch my back, then I won't scratch yours and there would be no contract. They aren't connected in body or by will. Only by means which each individual tries to take advantage of best as he can (that can be positive - you can tank, I can heal).