Why Teams Stall: It’s Not a People Problem

Why Teams Stall: It’s Not a People Problem

The Zoom gallery started with just nine boxes. Nine people tasked with recommending how AI could be integrated into the product development process to save $5 million next fiscal year.

The next week, there were twelve boxes. Half the meeting was bringing new people up to speed. The rest was agreeing to last week’s next steps.

A month later, three screens were required to show everyone, but most were on mute with their cameras off. The team was still working through Week 1’s To Do list.

Three months later, it was up to five screens because, concerned about the lack of progress, team members’ bosses wanted to join the call.

Six months after starting, every idea had been rejected by someone. The only surviving idea was to build an enterprise-wide chatbot.

The project was handed over to IT. The team disbanded. Millions were spent creating a chatbot that no one used.

 

Sound familiar?

The team wasn’t incompetent, lazy, or quietly rebelling against AI. It was people (lots of people) attending meetings, reading and sending emails, and executing their tasks. There were handoffs with no clear owner, and decisions that stalled and no one could say why.

The owner-less handoffs, stalled decisions, and quiet deaths are the result of seams, the hidden disconnects between functions, levels, and processes. Seams derail progress more reliably than a skill gap because they’re easy to mistake as “just how things are.”

You’ve seen this before, so you try to fix it. You get more involved. You add a high-potential employee to the team. You change the scope or the timing. Sometimes it helps. Usually, it takes up more of your time and only slows the project’s decline.

 

It’s not a people problem

When a team stalls, we reach for Myers-Briggs, DiSC, Hogan, or Kolbe to diagnose the problem, drive self-awareness, and solve all the problems.

They don’t.

A team is not a collection of individuals, yet those tools focus only on the individual. They assume a person shows up the same way in every single situation. We don’t. We show up differently depending on the topic, who else is in the room, the time of day, even whether we’ve eaten or had enough caffeine. Stack those variables against a dozen people and eight functions and a consolidated report of personality types is simply a comforting fiction.

 

It’s a team problem.

A team is a group of people who trust each other and share a common purpose. Tools to understand individuals aren’t designed to diagnose teams. They aren’t designed to dig into the systems, relationships, and competing priorities that create seams. And that’s why they can’t solve them.

Seamless Innovation examines how the team works as individuals AND together, revealing how seams are slowing progress and impacting results. Created by Jared Simmons, founder of OUTLAST Consulting, from his lived experiences at companies like P&G and Coca-Cola. When I discovered it, it felt like finding the Rosetta Stone because it translated what I experienced into something practical and actionable. Over the past year, we’ve worked together to develop and test it with real people and teams.

Seamless looks at whether the team runs as individuals or an interdependent group with a common goal and at the balance between Think and Do. Think is how people engage across boundaries, and whether the group shares priorities, success measures, and tradeoff rules. Do is whether people can deliver without constant direction and whether the processes and permissions make work move.

Together, these two axes create a capability map of four attributes critical to team success: Collaborative Mindset, Shared Goals & Principles, Core Skill Mastery, and Single Process.

Next week we’ll look at each attribute, what it is, why it’s important, and what “good” looks like in the context of real-world experiences.

Because a team problem can’t be fixed with individual assessments.


Curious to learn more?  Click this link to take the Seamless Diagnostic. 

But remember, the results reflect your individual perspective. To experience the full benefit Seamless offers, you need the rest of your team to take it, too.  For that, just hit Reply and we’ll make that happen!

FAQs

What causes strategic decisions to stall inside a company?

Seams: the hidden disconnects between functions, levels, and processes. They show up as handoffs with no clear owner, decisions that stall with no one able to say why, and projects that die quietly. Meanwhile, everyone keeps attending meetings, sending emails, and executing their tasks. Seams derail progress more reliably than a skill gap because they’re easy to mistake for just how things are.

How do you get a project moving after it's been stuck for months?

Stop treating it as a people problem. The usual fixes are to get more involved, add a high-potential employee, or change the scope or timing. Usually, they take more of your time and only slow the decline. Personality tools like Myers-Briggs, DiSC, Hogan, and Kolbe focus on individuals, and we show up differently depending on the topic and who’s in the room. A stuck team needs a team-level diagnosis.

Is there a framework for diagnosing why a team stalls?

Yes. Seamless Innovation, created by Jared Simmons, founder of OUTLAST Consulting, examines how a team works as individuals and together. Two axes, Individual–Team and Think–Do, create a capability map of four attributes: Collaborative Mindset, Shared Goals & Principles, Core Skill Mastery, and Single Process. It measures the team, not the people.

Emotional Contagion is the Real Driver of Change’s Success

Emotional Contagion is the Real Driver of Change’s Success

For eight days, the Tartan Army filled Boston’s streets with kilts, bagpipes, and the constant refrain of “No Scotland. No Party.”  Bars ran out of beer, traffic cones adorned statues, and resident’s souls were healed.

Now, some are saying corporate managers should have the same effect on the people around them (presumably without consuming all the beer in the office).

The possibility of collective effervescence

Collective effervescence is everywhere right now: in New York at the Knicks’ championship parade, the Tarps Off shirtless section at baseball games, at every unexpected draw or win at the World Cup.

It’s the “emotional electricity or excitement that lifts people outside of themselves and makes them feel like they’re connecting to something transcendent,” explains Christina Simko, and associate professor of sociology at William College. “They (members of a crowd) have to have a common focus and a common mood, and through that physical interaction, they generate something … greater than the sum of its parts.”

Greater than the sum of its parts.

Where have a I heard that before?

Could it be in every press release announcing an acquisition, all-hands meeting kicking of a transformation, and email confirming a re-org?

Which explains why I’m reading about the need for executives to create collective effervescence to ensure the success of transformational initiatives.

Seventy percent of transformations fail and one of the leading causes of failure is insufficiently high aspirations. Collective effervescence is sufficiently high but setting that as a metric of success will only drive up the failure rate.

The probability of emotional contagion

Emotional contagion is also everywhere: in the laugh that spreads through a room, the frown that moves around a conference table, the yawns that can’t be suppressed in meetings.

It’s the “phenomenon in which a person unconsciously mirrors or mimics the emotions of those around them” through nonverbal, conversational, or behavioral cues. It can be positive, like smiles and laughs, or negative like frowns or the tension from a tough conversation.

That’s good news for executives.

Leaders are “emotional amplifiers” because team members are more likely to mirror the leader’s tone than their peers. Research out of USC also indicates that, historically, positive emotions are more contagious than negative ones.

It’s also bad news for executives.

The emotional amplifier role cuts both ways and research shows that people tend to “overperceive” negative cues from leaders, even magnifying small emotional cues well beyond what a leader intended.

That means the frown everyone on the company-wide Zoom was most likely interpreted as disagreement, even opposition, to what was being discussed. And not that your shoes are too tight.

 The reality of leading humans through change

Leading people through change is hard. It’s even harder when you’re under a microscope and every smile, frown, sigh, cough, and eye roll is scrutinized and interpreted as if it were a secret code foretelling the future of thousands.

It’s not. But your team believes it is.

And perception is reality.

Here’s how to start shaping reality to make the changes happen:

  • Start with self-awareness. What is your mood right now? If it’s useful to the team, spend time with them. If it’s not, reschedule the meeting or send a proxy.
  • Make direct eye contact with people. According to the research, eye contact during verbal communication activates brain regions that help us understand what someone is saying and what they mean. Just don’t stare. That’s creepy.
  • Neutralize the negativity publicly. A bit of skepticism can be healthy for teams going through change but too much easily crosses over into pessimism and even hostility that spreads throughout the team. So stop the spread by publicly and patiently calling out the behavior and seeking to understand the root cause.

You don’t need collective effervescence to successfully lead change.

You do need spread the belief that change is possible and beneficial.

And you can do that without wearing a kilt.

“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

“Do More with Less” Without Burning Out in 3 Practical Steps

We have entered the “do more with less” era of management edicts.

And, just like the eras of “fail fast,” “synergy,” and “we’re a family,” the phrase is met with eye rolls, silent groans, and a deepening certainty that management is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground.

But what if doing more with less is possible without the extra hours and stress that lead to burnout?

 

(Re)Define “more.”

When we hear “more,” we naturally think of work. More meetings. More emails. More Slacks, texts, Zooms. For most of my career, I believed the more emails I received, meetings I attended, and documents I wrote, the more valuable I was.

Volume does not equal value.

“More” can’t (and shouldn’t) mean more work. It must mean something else.

More value creation. Less box checking.

More progress. Less process.

More meaningful work. Less meaningless activity.

What is the “more” you want from your team? Define it or you’ll get more emails, meetings, and documents. Name it (value, efficiency, progress), and your team will figure out how to do it.

 

Experiment with “less.”

A client’s team stopped sending meeting summaries. They didn’t send shorter ones, change the distribution list, or even share the link to the AI note-taker. They just stopped.

No one noticed.

Six months later, a new team member asked if they would send a meeting summary. The team leader said no but offered to recap next steps before everyone left the room. No one argued. Everyone left the meeting with clarity on what they needed to do next.

Activity does not equal achievement.

 Our days are filled with BS work, tasks that we do because we’ve always done them, because they feel important, and because we worry what happens if we stop.

Documents don’t ensure that people are informed, aligned, or are ready to act.

Meetings don’t guarantee that everyone has thoughtfully considered and agreed on a decision.

Meeting summaries don’t make people complete their next steps.

It doesn’t mean we don’t need documents, meetings, or meeting summaries. But “less” is possible.

Ask your team what you can do less of. Stop doing things and see if people notice. If you can’t stop something completely, ask what less of it looks like. Instead of a meeting summary, send next steps. Instead of a presentation, write a one-page summary. Instead of a spreadsheet build a visual dashboard.

 

Rethink “indispensable.”

The managers in my client’s training program were in roles that everyone called the most pivotal in the company. They didn’t feel pivotal. They felt reactive and overwhelmed, with no control over their own calendars.

The COO’s fix was simple. Just stop attending.

It surprised him that they wouldn’t. They couldn’t. The fear of missing something kept them in every room, including the ones that ran fine without them.

You’re in every meeting because you’re good at your job. Being good got you invited into every decision, and somewhere along the way no one uninvited you. Now you stay out of habit, not need. The permission to step back is usually there. You just haven’t tested it long enough to know what happens.

 Presence does not equal performance.

Look at your calendar for the meetings you sit in out of habit. Pick one this week to not attend. Resist the urge to instructions. Simply tell the team lead you won’t attend and that you trust them to keep things moving.

Your absence isn’t dropping the ball. It’s demonstrating that you trust the team and empowering them to do their jobs. It’s the rare version of less that gives you more time and your team their autonomy.

 

“Do more with less” isn’t a demand to work harder

The constraint isn’t going anywhere. Volume isn’t value. Activity isn’t achievement. Presence isn’t performance. It’s a reason to finally drop what doesn’t matter.

Want to Know Your 2027 Priorities?  Look to Nebraska.

Want to Know Your 2027 Priorities? Look to Nebraska.

In October, at InnoLead’s annual conference in Boston MA, everything was AI. When the facilitator of a LEGO Serious Play workshop announced we would not talk about AI, the room erupted in applause.

In April, at Inside Outside Innovation’s biannual conference in Lincoln NE, everything was human. By day’s end, speakers and attendees alike were celebrating the sweet relief of a human-led, AI-supported future.

Why the difference? AI hasn’t fallen out of the news cycle, nor have AI-driven layoffs ceased.

Perspective.

InnoLead’s conference featured practitioners living the day-to-day reality of change and innovation. IO 2026 spotlighted thought leaders like Eric Ries, David Bland, and Erin Stadler, advisors able to see across organizations and invited into the C-Suite’s inner sanctum.

One conference talks about what is. One about what will be.

So, if you want to know what your C-Suite will task you with in six months, look to Nebraska.

 

To move forward, we must face hard truths

Eric Ries, the creator of Lean Startup and author of the forthcoming Incorruptible, exposed the myth that free markets reward value creation. They reward value extraction. Companies focused on extraction forget their purpose, serve themselves over their customers, and ultimately fail.

Elliott Parker, CEO of Alloy Partners and author of  The Illusion of Innovation, declared corporate innovation to be alchemy. Isaac Netwon spent his life pursuing alchemy (creating calculus was just a side quest) but failed because the basic building block of matter, the atom, is immutable. The same is true of big company executives pursuing innovation. The atomic elements of corporations (efficiency) and entrepreneurship (autonomy, passion, urgency, skin in the game, and freedom) are immutable and incompatible. Just as lead cannot become gold, companies can’t create like startups.

 

 

To do better, we must focus on people

Erin Stadler, founder of Design Culture and author of one of my all-time favorite articles on innovation, shared a forgotten truth: “When we lead with people, the human element, the science, the innovation comes with it.”  To do this requires leaders and organizations to find and state their purpose, to build principles and values, and to act on them every day

Dan Hassenplug, VP of Design at sport tech company Hudl, boldly declared that customer obsession is the “real AI strategy.”  After all, getting 10x faster at something doesn’t matter if it’s on something that doesn’t matter. And what matters are your customers. Living with them, talking to them, listening to them. You’ll get radical and game changing insights that no competitor, survey, or synthetic persona can.

David Bland, founder of Precoil and author of Testing Business Ideas, implored the audience to flip the 80/20 ratio of feasibility experiments to desirability experiments. Why? “We can make anything these days. It doesn’t matter if you can make it if no one wants it.”

 

 

To focus on people, we must serve them

Ted Ullrich, co-founder of Tomorrow Lab, reminded us that “simplicity is earned,” not a starting point. We start by trying to do all the thingsfor customers, but that’s overwhelmng and unnecessary. Only by listening to humans and staying humble can we create the simple solutions that create value.

Julie Ann Crommet, founder of Collective Moxie and former VP at Disney, dazzled us with the simple fact that “the more specific the story, the more universal.”  She backed this up with data that films with Authentically Inclusive Representation perform nearly 3x better at the box office and the story behind how Coco became Pixar’s highest grossing movie in China, despite content that is typically banned.

 

 

The future is wonderfully human

AI isn’t going away and it will change almost all aspects of life and work. But if the thought leaders, advisors, and designers in Nebraska are right (and I think they are), the future will be far more human than machine.

You’re Addicted to AI. That’s by Design.

You’re Addicted to AI. That’s by Design.

“AI is the new cigarette.”

When a colleague said this in the waning days of 2022, days after ChatGPT burst on the scene, she took my breath away. The idea that this miracle would kill us seemed confined to hysterical handwringing foretelling the birth of Skynet.

She was right.

But neither of us knew it was designed to be that way.

 

Designed for addiction

My friend predicted that ChatGPT would stay free and helpful until usage reached “critical mass,” and then we’d have to pay. Less than three months after its November launch, OpenAI introduced its $20 per month service.

But it’s not the “first one’s free, the next one will cost you” aspect of drugs that makes AI addictive. It’s the design decisions at its core that keeps you coming back:

  • Purchase Decoupling in which you convert real money into tokens, creating psychological distance between you and your actual spending
  • Difficulty Curve where skills and benefits accumulate quickly giving you the sense that you’re becoming more capable over time and therefore more committed after progress slows.
  • Skill Atrophy where every skill you stop practicing because the machine does it for you, quietly disappears.

Even casual AI users have experienced one or more of these:

  • You get a message mid-chat telling you you’ve used all your tokens and need to come back in three hours even though you’ve paid your monthly $20 fee
  • You’re prompting in all caps because it’s the only way you can think of to get the LLM to stop hallucinating, while reminiscing about the days when it was a brilliant thought-partner
  • You’ve relied on AI to outline articles for the last several months, but you need to write in a different style and have no idea how to get started.

And yet, we keep going back.

But it’s not just individuals who are addicted. It’s entire organizations.

 

Signs that your organization is addicted to AI

Your CFO asks for the total AI spend across the organization. Three weeks and four departments later, the number is three times what anyone expected because the licenses are buried in IT infrastructure budgets, the pilots are expensed as innovation projects, and half the tools were purchased by business units on corporate cards.

The board approved the AI transformation initiative based on the pilot results. Eighteen months later, the pilot case study slide hasn’t changed, headcount has been reduced in anticipation of productivity gains that haven’t materialized, and the team running the pilot has quietly moved on to other work.

You eliminated the analyst pool two years ago because AI could do in minutes what they did in days. Now you need to evaluate whether the AI’s output is actually correct, and you’ve just realized there’s nobody left in the organization to check it because everyone who’s done it is gone.

Sound familiar? Your organization is an addict.

 

Recovery is possible

Addiction can’t be cured, only managed. The same is true for AI.

The road to recovery starts in a similar place: Visibility

  • Centralize AI spending the way you centralize other business processes AND allow some flexibility by setting strict spending limits and clear decision-making criteria and ownership.
  • Start pilots with the end in mind by establishing success metrics and scaling plans at the start of the pilot, not when it’s already in process.
  • Treat certain human capabilities as strategic reserves the same way you’d treat any critical operational dependency. Before automating a function, explicitly document what judgment and expertise currently lives there, who holds it, and what it would cost to rebuild it if needed.

Unlike cigarettes or gambling, we’ve reached a point where we can’t quit AI.

But we can be aware of our addiction and we must manage it.

The first step is admitting that it’s real.  And by design.