
Ready, set, go! A roadmap for sustainable business transformation
Getting “ready” for net zero is increasingly becoming a lynchpin in corporate strategy. However, making a net zero commitment should not be made lightly....
by Ginka Toegel Published 13 April 2021 in Brain circuits • 2 min read
Destructive conflict is often rooted in perceived incompatibilities between team members. By being proactive and surfacing these upfront, when the pressure is off, managers can inoculate teams against future blow-ups.
Most teams take a reactive approach to conflict by trying to improve team members’ capabilities to respond to clashes. These approaches often allow frustrations to build up for too long, making it difficult to reset negative impressions.
But what if you tried to immunize colleagues against the negative impact of differences at a very early stage in the team’s existence? The skills needed to facilitate such proactive discussions are far easier to master than those required for conflict resolution.
A simple tool can help structure open conversations around five domains – along with five sets of questions designed to surface key differences that disrupt team functioning. The approach empowers managers to facilitate team discussions before the differences between colleagues have had a chance to trigger strong emotions or animosity.
In our previous brain circuits on the topic of team conflict, we looked at questioning our assumptions about others based on their appearance, behaviors and communication styles.
Today we turn to the penultimate area in this five-part series. It concerns possibly the biggest source of conflict in teams: the different ways in which team members think about the work they are doing.
As one executive with a US apparel company sums it up: “There is often tension between the ready-fire-aim types on our team and the more analytical colleagues.”
Ask your team to respond to these questions:
Remember to ask yourself, too.
Your team members’ cognitive styles will likely differ greatly, particularly with regard to methodical versus intuitive thinking. But once they are aware of the problem, you can move on to thinking collectively about ways to match team needs to mindsets, such as by rotating leadership of projects.
Professor of Organizational Behavior and Leadership at IMD
Ginka Toegel is a teacher, facilitator and researcher in the areas of leadership and human behavior. Specialized in providing one-to-one leadership coaching and team-building workshops to top management teams in both the public and private sector, her major research focuses on leadership development, team dynamics, and coaching. Ginka is director of the Strategies for Leadership program. and the Mobilizing People program.
22 April 2022 • by Vanina Farber, Patrick Reichert in Brain circuits
Getting “ready” for net zero is increasingly becoming a lynchpin in corporate strategy. However, making a net zero commitment should not be made lightly....
7 April 2022 • by Knut Haanaes , James Henderson in Brain circuits
Here are the essential steps needed to ensure that your business stands the test of time. ...
6 April 2022 • by Ben Bryant in Brain circuits
While it is always important to ensure teams are collaborating well, the strain on individuals this year has been extreme so it is more important than ever to foster dialogue to provide...
5 April 2022 • by Öykü Işık in Brain circuits
It’s not a matter of if, but rather when, your organization will experience a cyberattack. Have you assembled the right team to address the problem when it happens, and have you answered...
You have 4 of 5 articles left to read.