Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /www/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1277 Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /www/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1314 Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /www/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1318 Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /www/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1346 Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /www/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 3605 Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /www/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 3612 Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /www/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 3625 How to keep simmering issues from derailing your team - The Detwiler Group

Do simmering issues on your team prevent smooth group efforts?

Maybe there’s past ‘bad blood,’ or one party imputes negative motives to the other. Perhaps a dominant personality habitually runs roughshod over the ideas of the other, or two team members have become avatars for two different factions.

For example, in one organization, disagreement in philosophy between two board factions was harming working relationships in the entire organization. The tensions affected the staff mentally and emotionally, and the board members had no clue. As I facilitated their retreat, I had the opportunity to show them the effect of this tension and help them craft a way to deal with the disagreements.

This is a common situation. As a group, you have to work together, but you know there are issues that could derail the process.  What can you do?

You need a neutral navigator

A trusted, neutral person – an internal or external facilitator – can address the underlying tension. They help the parties recognize that the tension isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but has to be attended to or it will affect the entire organization.

Several key steps make this trust possible.

Create trust

  • The facilitator must be viewed as neutral. Whether internal or external, the facilitator has to be seen as not favoring one party or the other.
  • The facilitator must have a personal, confidential conversation with each party to the decisionmaking process. Whether in-person or by phone, by interviewing each party no one person feels like they have been singled out. Through these confidential conversations the facilitator begins to lay the foundation of trust, and hears how the parties talk about the simmering issues.
  • In the meeting, the facilitator identifies the task at hand and gets agreement that this is its purpose. This establishes that there is a higher goal they are all aspiring to.
  • The facilitator builds on the individual trust relationship by creating a safe space within the group. This means starting with noncontroversial topics and using techniques so each participant has an opportunity to talk about something personally meaningful. Often, the facilitator can bring the group to agreement about the ultimate value of the organization purpose; this lays the groundwork for a discussion of how the tension is harming their work towards this goal.

Address the tension

  • The facilitator brings up the simmering disagreement themself. This is very important. After reiterating and getting acknowledgement that this is a safe space, the facilitator states they’d like to bring up something they heard from several people in the confidential conversations. Then, without naming names, they relate what they heard and the effect it has on the entire organization.
  • The facilitator states that tension, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Tension can make for a more robust examination of issues. It is how it is dealt with that’s important. Reiterating the tension, the facilitator asks for situations in which this tension has affected the organization’s operations, and how it is currently dealt with.
  • The facilitator’s questions avoid laying blame AND avoid placing responsibility for the solution. Once the group acknowledges the tension, the next question is “what can be put in place that will make it easier to deal with the tension?” This phrasing reinforces the neutrality and extends the trust relationship. No one person is singled out. It conditions participants to think of solutions without implicating a particular person. It is not, “what can Joe do….,” but indicates that they can all implement a system that relieves the situation.
  • The facilitator continues this discussion, documents the solutions, and uses techniques for coming to consensus on the process they will follow in the future when the tension arises. At the conclusion, the process is documented and distributed.

Relax and work toward a solution

The key is having a neutral, trusted individual facilitate the discussion. Whether using an internal or external facilitator, each participant knows that they will be treated fairly and not singled out. Members of the group can then relax and work together toward a solution.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a multi-day retreat or a half-day planning session. Without attending to underlying tensions, they can derail getting consensus on decisions.

What’s going on in YOUR teams? Can attention to tensions make your work smoother?

Get in touch for a conversation about how facilitation can make your work easier. Or sign-up here for more ideas about managing boards and planning.