On great teams and an open heart

In a previous article, I attempted to address the claim that psychological safety is the foundation for successful teamwork. Through the lens of the powerful model known as "fight or flight," we observed how complex the task is of creating a safe environment where individuals can thrive - innovate, take risks, and show vulnerabilities. In this article, we explore potential solutions - what are the keys to building trust and psychological safety within a team and how they lead to excellent outcomes in the end. The role of the manager as well as effective counseling interventions are discussed.

Why is team cohesion so important? It is a great way to build trust

A significant part of my consultancy work involves teams. I make sure to dedicate at least a third of the time to developing team cohesion to strengthen personal familiarity. This has a very strong impact – it's not just that the team "softens" a bit towards dealing with organizational or business matters. Getting closer allows understanding of each other's motivations and values. As a result, new channels of communication and mutual understanding open up, facilitating dealing with team conflicts and difficulties.

Patrick Lencioni introduced the world to the model of the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. When he refers to trust, Lencioni doesn't speak about trust in the sense of "relying on others to perform the task" but rather Vulnerability-based trust. Such trust occurs when the team reaches a point where its members feel comfortable being transparent and honest with each other, where they can freely admit mistakes or acknowledge that someone else's idea is better than theirs. When each team member knows that everyone else is capable of making such "vulnerabilities," of expressing and intending such statements, and not hiding mistakes or weaknesses, the team develops a deep sense of trust.

The power of connection in collaboration lies in replacing judgment with empathy

A few weeks ago, I facilitated a management meeting for a technology company where one of the dominant patterns was significant tension among the management team - the marketing and sales managers, in particular, expressed considerable frustration over what they perceived as excessive time taken by the development team to release a version to the market. While this conflict is quite common in B2B companies, in this case, the level of distrust between the parties was troubling and created significant damage.

During the meeting, the Engineering manager shared with the team his challenges in recruiting new talent and retaining the existing team. He also talked about the tensions that had arisen within his management team due to the shortage of developers. The Engineering manager acknowledged that all these factors put significant psychological pressure on him, especially as he was personally responsible for the system's stability - a critical service to customers. He spoke candidly, with great courage and a sense of responsibility. His fellow managers seemed moved as he spoke, responding with openness and a willingness to assist. They no longer saw him as the stubborn development manager refusing to commit to new features and solely focused on the system's uptime but rather as their true partner on the journey.

We all have a tendency to attribute negative behaviors of others to their personality or intentions, while attributing our own negative behaviors to external factors. This is the "Fundamental attribution error" which often exacerbates conflicts. For example, if a colleague at work bursts out aggressively, we might interpret their behavior as them having a particularly short fuse, something that happens to them frequently. However, when I "lose it," I will probably attribute the outburst to unique circumstances like a response to someone who crossed a line or difficult times at home.

The best way to deal with this tendency is to help team members deeply understand each other. By doing so, we significantly increase the chance that people will replace unfair judgments with empathy, allowing the team to develop trust and goodwill among its members.

Returning to the previous example, given the open nature of the Engineering manager's challenges, his peers understood the objective difficulties he was facing ("he's not just giving me a hard time, he's really in a tough spot"), thus opening a window for finding shared solutions.

Trust is a necessary condition for the existence of productive conflict

Without trust, I won't engage in discussions with a "open heart" - I always fear that team members might be promoting their own personal agenda, or perhaps even an agenda against me. Therefore, in many cases, I might refrain from expressing what I truly think or alternatively adopt an aggressive approach ("fight or flight").

Why is the existence of conflict so important? We have all participated in anemic discussions - a shallow dialogue where people avoid conflict and refrain from expressing their opinions. At the end of the discussion, the meeting leader sums up the decisions, and the other participants remain indifferent.

When we engage in dialogue within a group where the ultimate goal is to reach the best decision, it's imperative that all relevant perspectives and opinions are heard - only then can we make an optimal decision. This is also a necessary condition for personal commitment to the decisions made. If I wasn't involved in making the decision, I might undermine it - act passively and even act against the decision.

The presence of productive conflict is a necessary condition for commitment to decisions that have been made

A few years ago, during my managerial tenure, I led a program for developing outstanding employees in the company. As part of the program, there was a discussion within the management team about whether to identify these talents based on their seniority level within the organization. I believed that excellence should be distributed across all levels of the organization, and therefore, we expected to see their talent normally distributed at all levels - among developers, team leaders, and senior managers alike. I tried to persuade my fellow managers to base the program on this principle, but most of them believed that talent were more prominent at higher levels, and therefore, investment should be directed there.

The CEO agreed with their decision.

I it hard for me to give up my approach, so during the implementation stage of the program, I tried to incorporate this principle gently as part of the program management. Two team members noticed this and expressed their disagreement with the direction set. I took note of their remarks and adjusted myself to the original decision made by the management team.

Through personal commitment, team members support and hold each other accountable - this is a necessary condition for excellent business outcomes

One of the best indicators of a strong team is shared leadership and accountability: each team member is responsible for their team's goals - for instance, the sales manager has clear targets for how much they need to sell in each area and at what profitability. However, other team members are committed to supporting the company's overarching goals that are common to all team members. For example, if rapid growth in a specific geographic area or vertical is strategically vital, it must make an impact on the goals of the development, product, and marketing managers, as well as the sales manager.

It's not always simple - one of the most significant challenges for a management team is the "tension" between the team they lead (such as the product management team, for example) and the executive management team. For an engineering manager, investing heavily in a particular vertical may seem like tedious work that affects the motivation of the developers. In another case, the same engineering manager, might find it absurd to allocate 80% of resources to features and only 20% to strengthening the technological infrastructure, but if that's the decision of the executive team, they must accept it as the optimal decision for the organization. To achieve excellent results in such dilemmas, the manager must act in accordance with the decisions of the executive team, Team Number One, as Patrick Lencioni describes. Only then can the management lead the organization clearly and decisively towards business success.

My experience shows me that there is a strong correlation between the coherence and effectiveness of the management team and the overall health of the organization and its ability to thrive and succeed. It's quite logical - just like in a family, the stronger the connection between the parents, the more the family flourishes. Therefore, as managers and human resources professionals, investing in the leadership team of the organization/team is one of the best investments you can make.