Finding trust again (case study)
The following case study is based on a real leadership team so some of the details have been slightly altered and deliberately vague to preserve client confidentiality.
A few years ago, I was asked to work with a leadership team at a State government agency. C-suite executives had launched a capacity building initiative to be rolled out across the State. The model involved delivering 12 monthly sessions of group coaching to improve the capacity of the leadership team to support their staff with the roll out. But I quickly realised the situation was a complex case of broken trust and damaged relationships that went far deeper than I initially thought.
Unresolved Conflict
On my first contact with the leadership team, it was clear there were many complex and long-standing issues within the team. The team consisted of seven team leaders and one senior manager who had worked together for years. The team had experienced many attempts over the years to address and repair the fractured relationships within the team. Attempts to address performance concerns resulted in complaints and counter allegations. The organisation’s complaints processes were weaponised. Mediation was deployed. Senior managers tried to intervene. An Executive coach (internal to the organisation) was being accessed by one of the managers. But these traditional organisational responses failed to have a positive impact on the situation. In fact, according to the leadership team some of these attempts to manage the conflict had made it significantly worse. Mediators and senior managers were unable to effectively shift the group. The Executive coach was working with one person, but this was having little impact across the group as a whole. The narrative of the leadership team became steeped in blame, shame and hopelessness.
Repairing Ruptures
On my first site visit chaos quickly unfolded. . I had arranged the session with the senior leader and gave the leadership team advanced notice of the first session. But when I arrived, only one member of the team was onsite and even so, they had not been advised the coaching session had been scheduled so were between meetings and not available for the session. They were flustered, overwhelmed and confused why I was there to meet with the team, and the team had not been told..
“See, this is the problem. We can’t even engage in simple communication with each other. It is a complete mess. I am not sure how we will get through this” they revealed. We spoke briefly and I listened to further examples about the about the extent of conflict. Sadly, the sentiment of the collective leadership team was hopelessness. The group were convinced nothing would change.
I returned the following month to facilitate the first session with the whole team. The tension between the team was obvious as soon as the group gathered. Verbal communication was minimal, whereas the non-verbal cues conveyed strong emotions between team members. Two participants avoided eye contact at all costs, whereas another two participants positioned themselves closely and presented as a united front.
Throughout the session, I could see the interpersonal dynamic embodied the ‘Drama Triangle’, a concept coined in the 1960’s by psychiatrist Stephen Karpman. In the drama triangle, there are 3 roles: the persecutor, the victim and the rescuer. The common scenario involves one person persecuting another, with a third person stepping in to rescue the victim. These roles can rotate between participants, so are not necessarily attached to one particular person.
To effectively work with group over the next 12 months, the first session was used to set up clear boundaries for our group coaching. This included negotiating the logistics of each session, sharing expectations/hopes and fears, and designing a collective commitment to guide engagement. I consider these as fundamental elements of group work, each critical in the establishment of psychological safety.
From the first session, I noticed non-verbal communication frequently used to communicate within the leadership team. Consequently, throughout all 12 sessions I responded to these observations. Being able to notice and respond to group dynamics is a challenge for facilitators of group work. But a skilled facilitator can both see and respond to non-verbal communication, even in the most tense and difficult times.
Throughout the sessions, I consistently reponded to my observations. I shared my observations carefully and curiously asked questions, inviting participants to engage in the otherwise unspoken dynamic. I paused conversations. I gently asked what wasn’t being said. When silence passed by minutes at a time, I invited comments and thoughts. Holding space like this allows people with less direct communication styles to have a chance to speak. Holding space also invites people to think about what they are thinking and feeling, before speaking.
Over the next 5 sessions, I facilitated group discussions with relative success. Participants attended, contributed to the discussion, and showed genuine engagement with the process. Until we reached a barrier. In sessions 6 to 8, conversations became haltered, questions went unanswered, and tensions escalated within the group dynamic. But the group was stuck and unable to move forward.
Through a series of curious conversations, it became clear the leadership team were unable to trust each other enough to tolerate having important conversations about how they could move forward as a group. The willingness was there, I had seen it in the first 5 sessions. Participants arrived early progressively they all showed signs of being motivated and engaged in the session. But the capacity wasn’t there. The group had reached the upper limits of functioning as a leadership team. But there was one aspect missing. The group did not trust each other. After years of conflict and dysfunction, the group did not know how to perform as a team.
To move forward, I extended an invitation to the group to meet with me 1:1 to explore the group’s challenges more openly to moving forward. When combined with the group sessions, the 1:1 sessions opened up a deeper understanding about the group dynamics. The sessions offered clarity to an otherwise confusing, complex and frustrating situation. Each participant was invited to share their perspective about what they felt was the root cause of conflict with the team. What transpired was a narrative about a long-standing conflict between two team members. The conflict had unravelled over years and years. There was a growing list of reasons that reinforced the conflict. Every few months there was another incident of conflict, but with each incident there was no opportunity to ever repair that rupture that occurred between the two colleagues who experienced the greatest amount of unresolved conflict. The conflict was so long standing that neither one was able to specifically identify when or why it first started. Each person had played “persecutor” or “victim”, with different colleagues stepping in as “rescuer” on each occasion. The conflict played out across all operational aspects of the business. The impact could be seen in decision making which involved high conflict, low consensus, disruptions to workflow and poor results for service-users. Teams became siloed – operating in isolation of other teams, despite working in a system designed to function on the principles of collaboration.
This situation was complex. It was clear the group were operating with empty cups themselves, yet the organisation had clear key performance indicators in place about areas of practice improvement and these were not negotiable.
Finding Trust Again
Working with a group over 12 sessions calls upon a diverse range of skills to ensure the outcomes are positive. For the purpose of this case study, I have highlighted three key results from my work with this leadership team. At the same time, itis important that I acknowledge there are no simple solutions to complex situations such as the ones encountered by the team.
Role Modelling
The leadership team had endured years of unconstructive discussions, and the occasional argument. The group had lost the essence of internal communication. Conversations occurred without respect and professionalism, even though individuals identified these were important parts of their professional identity.
When I work with a group, I focus on developing the skills of participants through demonstration. For example, I provide examples of how to approach a conversation that could be a little challenging or offers a new way of communicating. But the goal is to enable the participant to find their own style rather than learning a fixed approach that doesn’t suit their approach.
Throughout my facilitation with the group, I was able to demonstrate communication skills like the use of curious questions. These questions to prevent assumptions and creating false narratives about what was being said. For example, checking the meaning behind someone’s words. Using questions like “What is it you aren’t saying?” invites a participant to consider if there are other aspects of a conversation they aren’t clearly communicating.
Accountability
From the first session, each participant was accountable for their contribution in the process. Before a team can achieve cohesion, accountability must be established on an individual level. Using gentle, probing questions, I was able to bring accountability into each session. If a participant was late, I acknowledged their absence. If a participant was withdrawn, I enquired about their involvement. When I sensed disagreement, I invited alternative perspectives. I carefully facilitated healthy, constructive conflict to show the value of a sharing opposing views. These exchanges allowed for the establishment and growth of psychological safety. Once established, the leadership team was able to fully participate in carefully facilitated discussions. Each session was started with careful consideration to focus on a particular topic and intention for the group to each engage with the goal of moving forward to heal the wounds caused by conflict.
Restored Team Cohesion
Bringing the team together for 3-hour coaching sessions each month provided an experience for the group to see their capacity to restore functionality as a team. The sessions disrupted their usual experience of meetings which were described as pointless. The leadership team would gather, one person would dominate the conversation, other participants would stay verbally silent – though communicating a great deal through non-verbal cues of disagreement.
The 12 coaching sessions were used to discuss key performance indicators and other topics that had typically resulted in compounding the conflict. Allowing the group to share varied points of view created a new experience of respectfully communicating their thoughts, without fear of unhealthy conflict. In early sessions, these conversations were carefully crafted and highly facilitated. Over time, the role of direct facilitation became less critical whilst the team showed growing capacity to participate in important discussions about core business and making critical decisions.
Rethink-ing Group Dynamics in Leadership Teams
Without foundations of trust and respect, leadership teams are unable to effectively function and lead cohesively to achieve outcomes they are designed to achieve. There is no quick fix for years of conflict and fractured relationships. A situation like the one described here requires a longer term intervention designed to address the root cause before the team can come together to implement a new approach or process.
Working as an external consultant brings a unique perspective to complex issues, like the ones experienced by this leadership team. Over the 12 sessions, participants become increasingly engaged and were able to form a partnership with me that allowed them to learn how to build a relationship where trust was central. This, coupled with skilled facilitation, allows leadership teams to work through internal and external barriers that would usually prevent working cohesively. .I worked with the group – both collectively and individually – to both improve their capacity as leaders and to heal the team back into a basic level of functionality and to start working towards reaching their collective objectives. .
Do you see aspects of your team in this case study? Perhaps you are seeing the situation with greater clarity, or perhaps it is reinforcing what you already know.
For some of you, this will be a great insight into what is preventing your team from performing to the full extent of their individual capabilities.
Some organisations are fortunate to hold expertise and skills within internal staff to respond to a situation like this. Most are not so fortunate.
If you can recognise your team, business or organisation in this scenario and would like to explore how I could work with you to address the problem, contact me arrange an initial consultation.