Decision-making teams or leadership teams - whether entrepreneurial teams, co-founder teams, founder teams or executive teams - often reach a point at which they realise and ultimately admit to themselves that there is a hitch in their collaboration. In most cases, an unresolved situation escalates into real showdowns, into conflict escalation in management, which then becomes public - especially in DAX companies.
Neuroscientific research shows that stress and conflict in teams often lead to a "fight-or-flight" response, which can make rational decisions difficult and impair collaboration.
In my work with teams of founders and decision-makers, I have found that they often go through a gradual process in three phases.
Phase 1) At first glance, the co-operation seems to work well, people come to an arrangement as long as business is going well. You don't get in each other's way, everyone looks after their own area, does "their thing". On the surface, everything seems to be going well. In start-up founder teams, this is typically the case in the scaling phase at the beginning, when all (founder) hands are needed, everyone takes care of their own area but can also take on other topics "hands-on", and everyone works around the clock and the euphoria carries a lot and makes it bearable.
Phase 2) Over time, you realise that there are issues that keep ending up on the agenda, that are often postponed without being resolved. Or that there are points of contention that cannot be resolved and are swept under the carpet for fear of escalation, or that there are issues that always - reliably - lead to escalation. Communication channels become opaque, there is a lot of playing around, the tone becomes increasingly harsh and irritated, coalitions are formed. Important decisions can no longer be made, are postponed or take several rounds to reach agreement. It is more and more about "winning" or "losing", about "mine" and "yours", in short about sandbox games. The elbows are put on standby and are used more and more often.
Psychological safety is a key concept in team dynamics. Teams that feel safe to express ideas and take risks without fear of punishment or humiliation perform better, make decisions faster and are more creative.
Phase 3) The final phase is often accelerated by poor business figures, pressure from investors or shareholders, price losses on the stock markets or in the case of cryptocurrencies (for start-ups with ICOs), investment rounds that have gone down the pan or business models that are not working out. The tone has now become insulting, verbal spikes are flying around, people are shouting or not talking to each other at all, it's all about apportioning blame.
With founders, such "red rags" are often the distribution of shares (which in the initial euphoria are often distributed 50:50 without thinking twice) or the individual labour input. Personal attacks are the order of the day, often behind the scenes, as people no longer speak to each other. Appreciation and respect are relics of the past, if they ever existed. And ultimately it's all about the final "it's either you or me", everything else seems hopeless.
The only way out seems to be separation or ejection, the knives are sharpened and the carnage is not long in coming.
It seems easy when only one person has fallen out of favour ("the bad guy"), who you have set your sights on and who you can supposedly get rid of easily. It is more difficult in founding teams, as they all have significant shares that are not so easy to get rid of.
And this is no exaggeration, I have already experienced all these facets in my work.
- Why does this seem so difficult? Don't the very same decision-makers in your company demand cooperation, crowd innovation and collaboration from your organisation across company boundaries with customers and, increasingly, competitors?
- Isn't this precisely the challenge of increasing digitalisation, which above all brings global networking and dissolves (corporate) boundaries?
- Why does it often seem so difficult for founders and decision-makers themselves to set a good example?
The most important ingredient for good cooperation and a successful team is Trust (Google's Aristotle Project), which is based on psychological security. Trust develops over time, through shared values and joint, appreciative work.
From my experience, I am not surprised that leadership teams in particular find it so difficult to achieve real, sustainable cooperation. In my work with executive teams, I recognise 2 main reasons:
- A) In larger companies and DAX corporations, it is mainly people who have been able to assert themselves over a long period of time who have ended up in CXO positions. To put it bluntly, you tend to find people with "alpha animal" behaviour who have got there through tactics, healthy self-confidence, assertiveness and often with sharpened elbows and have prevailed against the competition. (Of course, I don't want to deny their high level of professional expertise). However, it is precisely these qualities that are not suitable for building cooperation, trust and togetherness.
- In difficult situations - and these are social contexts in which we are dealing with each other - we all - more or less automatically - unpack the characteristics that have enabled us to be successful in the past. And these are usually the old, unreflected automatisms - our human brain is simply "programmed" that way.
- B) In start-up and entrepreneurial teams where the co-founders have a more technical background, i.e. especially in tech start-ups, I notice that founders, entrepreneurs and co-founders with a technical background find it difficult to work together, as this is a skill that has not been the focus of either their studies or their career. They are trained to believe that a "factual discussion" is the only right thing to do. Emotions are swept under the carpet, as there is often a discomfort in admitting emotions in a professional context. Furthermore, technical managers find it difficult to recognise colleagues with a focus on "soft skills" (marketing, sales, HR) as equals. Visionary founders who have given the company its idea and vision find it difficult when they are questioned.
2) Management teams often focus exclusively on the operational side - the "WHAT" (the things that need to be done). Clearly, this is super important, especially at the beginning of a start-up. The business must be up and running, the products must be launched on the market, the operational business is crucial. Although there are always strategic topics on a traditional agenda, these often take a back seat to urgent operational issues. The "HOW" is usually completely forgotten: namely, how do we do the things that need to be done. This is about togetherness, the often ridiculed shared values, what makes up the culture (many executives are almost allergic to the word "culture" alone).
How can these conflicts be avoided or cooperation be healed?
1) Critical issues on the table
The sooner you address critical issues as a team or make it clear that there are discrepancies or tensions (even if you may not be able to name them exactly), the quicker you can resolve them and get back to productive work. It often takes a great deal of courage on the part of a member of the executive team to raise the issue, as the importance of the topic is often ridiculed and dismissed with statements such as "let's focus on the matter at hand"; or it is said that a conflict is nothing bad (which I can agree with for constructive conflicts, but is a ticking time bomb for dysfunctional conflicts) and there is a risk of being caught in the crossfire.
Non-violent communication according to Rosenberg is a good starting point here (see also our own article on this).
- So if someone in your management team brings this up, you should all be grateful for it, take it seriously and sit down together for a chat. A retrospective of your collaboration over the last six months can be helpful here.
- Respect for something going wrong? If you are not (yet) confident enough as a team to hold such discussions, it can be very helpful to bring in an expert for a few meetings. You are welcome to contact me for this. The aim should always be for you to hold these meetings yourself in the near future.
2) Time out for collaboration (retreat)
It is important to focus on building trust in the team, on psychological safety. This is especially true for management teams, executive teams and founding teams. It is important to regular Distances (Rule of thumb: 2 times a year for 2 days, 2x ½ day (virtual or on-site)) to take a break from the operational side of things and, if you have already had good experiences, or initially with the support of a team coach, to look at the "HOW", the way we work together. The "HOW" includes issues of communication, dealing with each other, healthy conflicts that move the company forward and shared values:
- What do we want to achieve together as a team?
- What common values do we share? Are we clear about our common purpose?
- How do we want to work together?
- How do we distribute responsibilities and roles?
- How do we give ourselves feedback?
- How was our collaboration in the last quarter? What can we do differently?
You can book the ½-day virtual team retreat or the 2-day TeamBooster retreat with me. Here too, my aim is always to equip you with the tools and methods that are right for you so that you can organise these retreats yourself in future.
3) Regular focus on the "HOW": Time out is important, but should be supported by regular retrospectives every 4 weeks. A one-off team workshop does not help to sustainably improve day-to-day collaboration. It is important to realise that the "HOW" must play just as important a role in business life as the operational "WHAT". Time invested here should not be seen as a "luxury", a "nice to have", but is a "must have" of healthy company management.
4) Has the child fallen into the well?
If you are already, to use Glasl's conflict escalation model with the 9 escalation stages, in the "lose-lose" phase, i.e. you have already achieved "win-win" and "win-lose", then only good mediation can help. You should make use of this, sooner rather than later. Look for an independent mediator, because it's important that everyone has confidence in him or her. I have had very good experiences with "Klärungshilfe", a form of mediation that I enjoy working with.
You can find my own blog post on the topic of conflict and dealing with conflict here
Good cooperation is not rocket science, but it is also not a matter of course. It requires routines, care and attention (just like in a good marriage) and the awareness that this is part and parcel of successful and modern company management.
