The story told by the metrics of the team effectiveness survey suggested a different source of pathology. The team’s vulnerabilities were most visible in the “trust” section of the data. Although most employees reported having a trusted colleague on the team, the practice of collaboration, coordination, and cooperation was disabled. A-level clusters of talent housed within shouting distance of each other were not sharing vital resources.
There was no obvious explanation. Unselfish sharing of expertise would be to everyone’s advantage. Yet senior leaders were hoarding business intelligence. Undiagnosed, the chasm widened each day. Once the assessment illuminated the symptom, the search for the source of the problem was underway.
The diagnosis surprised the majority of the team. The explanation hadn’t occurred to most employees because it hadn’t been visible to them. Only a subset of the team had become aware of the rift between a small group of key leaders who had been forced to take sides after a protracted internal power struggle. Unbeknownst to the larger team, the fighting leaders had chosen to solve their disagreement by refusing to ever talk again. It had devolved to a grade school playground battle.
Since the diagnosis was so simple, the treatment plan was equally clear. Play nice in the sandbox or leave. The actual ability of the warring factions to establish a truce was yet to be determined, but the direction of the remedy was absolute. If they could do it, professional collaboration and sharing would resume. However, if the personal disagreement was more important to them than the team’s business goals, their leader was poised to help them launch their job search.
What a relief!