Why Your Team Keeps Fighting: The Hidden Systems Behind Collaboration Breakdown
Working together can be fantastic, especially when you find your rhythm and achieve synergy. You then feel like you can achieve anything together. When a group is lacking this flow and facing problems, we often examine the group dynamics first. There has been a lot of research on group dynamics, and many models are available in this area. Group dynamics concern the patterns within a group or team and usually focus inward. Interventions at the group level—for example, bringing these patterns out into the open—can be highly effective. However, sometimes the same patterns return after a while. Someone with knowledge of systemic work would see this as a signal to look at the problem at the system level, considering not only the group itself, but also the other systems to which it is connected.
Flow is generated — or hindered — by the exchange between all these different systems.
Flow is generated — or hindered — in a team by the interaction between these systems. In partnerships, many systems play a role. First, each individual has their own origin system that indirectly plays a role in the partnership. Additionally, there is the organizational system to which you belong, as well as the system of your department, and the team or product to which you belong. Other systems may also play a role, such as the system of the professional group you belong to, or the system of your client or market. If you cannot solve a problem in a team through group dynamics interventions, it may be helpful to take a broader view. Widening your perspective may allow you to see what is happening in the exchange between the team and one or more of these larger systems.
Tina was the team leader of a team responsible for financial administrative tasks. The team was newly formed after a reorganization. Previously, the staff had worked in other teams, where they each had solo functions. They knew each other but hadn't worked together before. Tina was clearly struggling. "They keep fighting," she said. "One person doesn't want to work with another because he doesn't trust people from that part of the organization." Another doesn't want to work with someone who worked in a team that committed fraud. Then there's someone who thinks he's so good that everyone should copy his methods. Where do I start?"
Problems and Solutions
The first question you can ask using systemic wisdom about the above example is, “What is the current situation a good solution for?” This question will help you take a step back instead of focusing on the symptoms: the individual employees who provide reasons for not working together. Even if you tried to address all these reasons, nothing would change. Replacing these employees with new ones would not solve the problem. A more structural solution could be found in the undercurrent, where the life-giving forces of systems apply. In this example, we will follow these forces to discover the system's reason for not wanting to work together.
"Belonging" as a life-giving force
From the life-giving force of belonging, you can ask: "Are there people who are no longer recognized or seen after the reorganization?" Complicated procedures are often designed in reorganizations to form new partnerships. Sometimes these procedures become so complicated that they no longer seem to concern people. Other times, different measures rapidly follow one another. In that case, the strategy is often that any resulting problems will be solved later. In both situations, people with special expertise or experience are easily forgotten. From this life-giving perspective, the team's resistance to working together is functional. The system is "forced" to reveal what is not recognized or seen. The same thing happens when someone in an organization is suddenly dismissed, or when an organization harms people or the environment and tries to hide it. This can manifest as a lack of cooperation in the form of an overcurrent, as the system's reaction to make visible that which is excluded.
Order as a life-giving force
The underlying reason for the lack of cooperation or resistance may also have to do with the life-giving force of "order." Everyone who is part of the system has a right to a position, and the positions within an organizational system have a fixed order. Working within this order provides peace and security. Systems thrive on this. In organizations, people or teams sometimes leave their place in the order. Then, they no longer function in their position within the organizational system with its corresponding responsibilities. For example, consider an employee on a project team who makes decisions that should be made by the project leader. Or consider someone who continuously gives instructions to and checks the work of a colleague with the same status, but this behavior is not reciprocal. In both cases, someone "places themselves above the other" in a way that does not coincide with their actual position. Another example of "leaving the order" is a manager who does not direct his team when trying to solve a new problem. In this case, the manager passes off his responsibilities to his team. After a reorganization, as in Tina's example, it is especially important to examine this vital force. The order must be "reinvented."
Exchange as a life-giving force
There are also good reasons not to work together, stemming from the life-giving force of "exchange." After an organization is reorganized, it has to "reset." The dust has to settle. In terms of how long this takes, the guideline is one cycle, such as one financial year or an election term. Everyone must reconnect to the system. Order must be re-established. This requires extra energy from the staff, yet it is unclear what they will receive in return. For this reason, reorganization disturbs the balance between giving and taking in the undercurrent. It is possible that someone appears to gain a lot in the overcurrent, for example, by receiving more development opportunities, better working conditions, or the chance to work closer to home.
Balancing again
When there is a reorganization within the first cycle, it introduces an extra risk factor. Employees must adapt to the new situation, which costs extra energy, and then they are forced to adapt again. This can make it less and less interesting for someone to connect with the organization or the goal of the reorganization. They have already given too much. By the time they reach the point of receiving something in return for their efforts, they must give again. Furthermore, the uncertainty of what and when they can expect something in return disrupts the balance even more. This balance can also be disrupted in teams that aren't affected by the consequences of a reorganization. For example, this can happen when production requirements are constantly increased without any kind of reward. Or when staff competencies and qualities that were previously highly valued by the organization suddenly become less important.
Tina immediately knew why the staff was restless. "The management kept saying how important the reorganization was, how much better everything was going to be, and how much more efficient everything would be. It was as if we had never done anything right in the past. In reality, the staff had managed quite well with the few resources available. They had prevented disasters." When we looked beyond the team, we saw that a lack of acknowledgment was a problem throughout the organization. It manifested in several different forms. In other words, there were a wide variety of symptoms. Tina got to work with her own team. She organized a team meeting about the lack of acknowledgment and the balance between giving and taking. Together, we approached management and planned a meeting about the symptoms we had noticed. The management came to the same conclusion as Tina and changed its communication strategy. The first concrete step taken by all members of the board was to visit the teams and learn what had been lost during the reorganization. All's well that ends well, right? Not quite. However, bringing up the undercurrent at the beginning gave management a better grip and more possibilities for successfully leading the new organization.
Questions about working together:
What is the lack of partnership really about? Does the symptom belong to one of the people on the team? Does it belong to the entire team, or to part of it? Or does it belong to a larger system?
If a certain person's behavior bothers you, ask yourself what function this person fulfills for the system by exhibiting this behavior. Is he ensuring that someone or something is not overlooked? Is she safeguarding quality?
Why are you the one looking at this situation? What role are you playing, or what need are you fulfilling, for the system when you do this?
When answering these questions, accept all possibilities as hypotheses. Imagine the lack of partnership is due to a person. What would that mean? What does that mean? Now, imagine that the lack of partnership is due to a team or part of a team. What would that mean? What does that say? Consider the above questions under the assumption that everything is fine the way it is. Nothing has to change. The current situation within the team or organization is the system's optimal solution for the time being. Acknowledging this gives the symptom a purpose. This is exactly the right function for the symptom. It gives the symptom a fitting place within the system, allowing you to continue your work. The symptom shows you where to start exploring. Reviewing the three life-giving forces, as we did in the example, can provide the necessary structure for this exploration.
