Miguel and Pete were dueling again.

These senior leaders were slashing at each other with arguments, rebuttals and cutting remarks that put them at the center of a working team meeting.

Neither foe vanquished the other. But the battle left each of them wounded, it nicked some of the surrounding people in the conference room, and—as usual—prevented the group from advancing its work.

Have you experienced this dynamic in your team or organization?

I witnessed this scene working with one of my clients a few years ago and have seen this pattern of personal antagonisms undermining effective work in other organizations as well.

While bona fide swords aren’t allowed in the workplace, they show up.

You see them in sarcastic comments and word sparring in email and meetings, in deliberate actions geared toward severing access to resources and key relationships, and in the subtle and not so subtle undercutting and backstabbing of colleagues.

These behaviors show up in individuals, and they also show up in teams.  When conflict gets vicious between people who work together —even when it is just two members of the team—it can seriously wound if not kill the team’s effectiveness and productivity. Decisions are undermined, credibility is lost, information is hoarded and best efforts are withdrawn.

According to Patrick Lencioni, who writes about the five dysfunctions of a team, conflict is a natural part of a team’s growth and ability to team(verb).  But when teams get too engrossed in conflict, and worse, fighting for themselves and at the expense of rather than in service of common goals, disaster strikes. Here’s more on what it looked like in one particular company:

The Shadow of Warring Chiefs

A newly formed senior team was charged with pulling together an ambitious first-time project that would elevate technology practices in their field on a national and international scale.   The team was composed of individuals who primarily came from two different organizations with philosophies and values that weren’t fully aligned.  While all team members had deep passion, skill and commitment, the team had yet to identify a joint focus for their teamwork or any interdependencies.

Members dutifully reported on their specific functions and sought to solve problems that interfered with work tasks. But the cooperation was limited. Looming large in their very few meetings and within the entire organization was the energy-draining shadow of conflict between two strong individuals—Miguel and Pete.  Their powerful, crossed swords made anything beyond incremental progress feel near impossible.

Miguel and Pete represented two very different and compelling visions for how the business needed to be organized.  Individuals, be they key stakeholders or even members of the senior team itself, were reluctant to weigh in for fear of being dragged into what seemed an unresolvable duel. At regular intervals, intense, crackling debates would erupt between Miguel and Pete – and in front of others.

Team members were often frozen into their own set pattern, either stuck in spectator mode or going to great lengths to “not see” the sword fights.   Avoidance of topics and meetings, side conversations and speculation, exuberant focus on solving technical issues rather than naming and working the conflict itself (which centered on a strategic issue), and general anxiety and frustration weighed heavily on the team and its ability to be effective.

A similar problem can arise when teams avoid conflict too strenuously. And, as with this team, overdoing conflict and conflict avoidance exist simultaneously at times. Fortunately, teams who find themselves in trouble in these ways can course-correct by redirecting their sword skills into the organizational equivalent of plowshares—into productive team behaviors.

The Investment That Created the Shift 

The team sought help from and outside consultancy (in this case, me and my company!). This led to them investing in a team offsite that started with team members getting to know each other and spending time exploring why the team existed and what mattered to each team member.   The team made a further decision to have regular meetings and occasional offsites in which they would commit time to talking and thinking through issues together.   Beyond the decision to invest in themselves, what was the absolute key to shifting the dynamic in the team?  Two words: Collective Focus

The team decided to take control of where and how they focus together.  Joy Page, a famous actress who starred in Casablanca said, “Instead of focusing on the circumstances that you cannot change – focus strongly and powerfully on the circumstances that you can.”  In the beginning, the team’s attention was captured by a conflict it had little influence over. Spending so much energy on the Miguel-Pete sparring impaired their ability to create fertile conditions that supported their teaming and the goals of the broader organization. They stopped doing this.  Instead they turned swords into plowshares.  Specifically, they:

1.    Shifted from an inward focus to an outward one. 

The team decided to focus on their team purpose and vision as defined by their key stakeholders (rather than just by themselves).  Whereas before, more time and attention was given to internal conflict, the team was able to shift much more of its energy toward addressing the needs, concerns, and challenges as defined by key stakeholders.   With purpose and vision more clearly defined, the team was able to discuss and agree on its priorities.  Importantly, they decided which priorities they would slice and plow through together, and which they would continue to segment by function.

2.    Tilled their own soil to cultivate psychological safety in the team.

Team members recognized that effective collaboration would require a space free of attacks and backstabbing. They also came to realize that they didn’t know each other well, and that they had more discoveries to make about themselves.  Through the initial offsite and additional meetings, they built the psychological safety that Amy Edmondson defines as “a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.” They did this by using tools such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to understand themselves and each other, and the differences and similarities between them.  They also took the time to share and explore each other’s values and hopes, and they gave each other feedback in the context of the team’s goals.  Their collective commitment to getting to know each other and to helping each other be better created psychological safety and trust.

3.     Identified and worked with the sharp skills in the team.

Taking time to get to know and understand each other combined with a common purpose, vision and priorities made it easier to appreciate the diversity and sharpness of skills each team member brought.  As opportunities and challenges arose, more of the team formally and informally consulted other team members.  This led to better and more complete thinking, ideation and problem solving.

So what of the swords – and Miguel’s and Pete’s in particular?   No team is perfect, and on occasion there would still be some sword crossing.  And, it turns out, this wasn’t all bad.  Within the context of the team having a collective focus, the sharp edge of conflict was often generative, making the ground fertile for new ideas and solutions.   Not too long after the first offsite, the team could actively debate without getting stuck.  They were much more diligent in trying to understand one another, and they were making an effort to acknowledge agreements.

Just as plowshares turn over the earth for better crops, healthy conflict and disagreement within the context of a  collective team focus can turn up new and better ways of doing things.

I hope this story and its lessons support you to have fruitful conflict, and ever more effective teaming in your business and in life! Please share your comments and with others freely.