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.

Competing Priorities Aren’t a Trade-off.  They’re a Test.  Are You Passing?

Competing Priorities Aren’t a Trade-off. They’re a Test. Are You Passing?

“Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.” – Ron Swanson, Parks and Rec

With all due respect to Ron Swanson, leaders today need to whole-ass two things. In a world of constrained resources, you don’t have enough time, money, or people to put against your highest priority, let alone multiple high priorities.

But if you think you must choose between investing in today or the future, know that you’re most likely choosing between killing your company quickly or slowly.  That’s what “And, not or,” and it’s required in these three areas.

 

 

Development AND Research

“Right now, it’s not sufficient to just keep treading water.” – L. Rafael Reif, former MIT president and current professor of electrical engineering and computer science

“America Is Losing the Innovation Race” screamed the Foreign Affairs article in which Reif detailed evidence that America is falling behind China in electric vehicles, nuclear energy, war technologies, and other areas of critical technology.

Since 2015, as China invested in science and technology to develop the capability to produce high-end products at scale, US federal spending on basic research, as measured in real 2017 dollars, has declined.

Even the research that is funded isn’t keeping up. A paper published in 2022 examined nearly 50 million academic papers and patents from 1945 to 2010 and found a precipitous decline in the “disruptiveness” (i.e. makes previous findings obsolete or pushes the field in a new direction) of research across all scientific fields, including a 100% drop in the physical sciences and a 78.7% decline in computer and communications patents.

The funding story is quite different but no less alarming on the corporate side. Between 1964 and 2022, business funding as a source of R&D funds more than doubled but the vast majority of those funds are spent on applied research (13%) and development (80%), not the type of fundamental research that launches a country forward economically or societally.

 

 

Operators AND Innovators

“It’s a trap” – MBA student

For two hours, we discussed Netflix’s culture: the no vacation policy” policy, the “act in Netflix’s best interest” expense policy, and the management philosophy that stresses hiring people for their expertise and then trusting them to make decisions.

To me it sounded like a dream. So, when I asked who wanted to work for Netflix, I was shocked when not a single hand went up.

To my students, it sounded like a trap.

And that’s ok. Not everyone wants to face the accountability and repercussions of taking risks, exercising judgment, and making decisions.

Companies need people who want to follow processes, become experts in their fields, and keep the business steady and growing. AND they need people who question processes, explore far beyond their industries, and challenge the business to do better and grow further.

 

 

AI AND Humans

“What keeps me up is the fact that so many people are being convinced that they don’t matter anymore.” – Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

When 16,000 jobs, on average, have been lost each month for the past year due to AI, it’s pretty hard to convince a human and they matter.

Yet a growing body of research shows that humans enabled by AI generate new and novel ideas more quickly and cost efficiently than either AI or humans alone. In a battle between 125 “global problem solvers” and one expert in prompt engineering, the latter produced 180 ideas in 5.5 hours at a total cost of $27.01 and none of the ideas were meaningfully different in terms of strategic viability, environmental or financial value, or overall quality than the human-only ideas.  At P&G, researchers found that the most innovative ideas were generated by AI-enabled teams and that those teams worked about 12% faster than other teams and AI-enabled individuals.

 

Ultimately, the companies that succeed won’t be the ones that make the best bets.

They’ll be the ones that learn to whole-ass two things.

Uncertainty, Overwhelm, and the Wisdom of Bull Durham

Uncertainty, Overwhelm, and the Wisdom of Bull Durham

We survived the first quarter of the year. Congratulations everyone, job well done.

Did we hope for more than just survival? Of course we did! But hey, sometimes just living to fight another day is a victory and we still have nine more months to hit our KPIs, deliver our OKRs, and nail this fiscal’s BHAG.

So, let’s take a moment to focus on what really matters: Baseball is back!

Along with the hope of the new season, and the warm weather that comes with it, comes an excuse to revisit the wisdom of classic baseball moves. In 2021, I wrote about Moneyball’s lessons in innovation and it continues to be one of the top read posts on my blog.

If you feel overwhelmed by Q1, fear not! There’s no greater source of advice on finding simplicity, solving problems, and leading people than Bull Durham.

 

When you’re overwhelmed, go back to the basics.

Skip: This… is a simple game. You throw the ball. You hit the ball. You catch the ball.

The Durham Bulls are 8-16 and Skip (the manager) has had enough. He’s tried every tool in his coaching toolkit and the team continues to perform poorly, display a poor attitude, and deliver a halfhearted performance. Overwhelmed and frustrated, he turns to veteran player Crash Davis for advice. “Scare ‘em,” Crash offers and what comes next is one of the greatest tirades on film.

But the greatest lesson here is what comes towards the end of the tirade: a description of the utter simplicity of baseball. There’s no strategy, no competitor analysis, no number-crunching, just a simple explanation of the most basic elements of the job. Throw. Hit.  Catch.

It’s easy to get overwhelmed by news, technology, corporate politics, the list goes on. That overwhelm causes us to worry, lollygag, and obsess about what could happen. But when we cut through all that to find the essence of what we do and why we do it, things become remarkably clear and the next steps feel obvious.

 

 

Fall in love with the problem.  Not the solution.

Zeke: We need a night off just to stop our losing streak. We need a rainout.

Crash: I can get us a rainout.

The Bulls are on another losing streak but this time on the road. As the team bus pulls into another motel and the players gather their bags, they complain about their problem (losing streak), propose an approach (night off) and propose a specific solution (rainout).

When Crash promises a rainout, it’s not because he knows something about the forecast the others don’t. It’s because he understands that there’s more than one way to get a night off. Like breaking into the ballpark, turning on the sprinklers, and flooding the field.

When we fall in love with a solution (rainout) we get stuck. We focus on making one thing happen, when critical dependencies are beyond our control. But when we fall in love with the problem (need a night off to stop a losing streak), we’re able to see less obvious but more likely and effective solutions.

 

People first. Problem solving second

Larry: [Jogs out to the mound to break up a players’ conference] Excuse me, but what the hell’s going on out here?

Crash Davis: Well, Nuke’s scared because his eyelids are jammed and his old man’s here. We need a live rooster to take the curse off Jose’s glove and nobody seems to know what to get Millie or Jimmy for their wedding present. We’re dealing with a lot of sh*t.

Larry: Okay, well, uh… candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe you could find out where she’s registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern. Okay, let’s get two! Go get ’em.

The Bulls are finally on a winning streak, but off-the-field issue are affecting on-the-filed play and things aren’t looking good. As the players gather on the mound, the team’s Assistant Manager trots out to figure out what’s going on and get the game going again.

After Crash sums up the personal issues, instead of telling the players to be professional, leave their problems at home, and get on with things, Larry focuses on solving the single issue affecting the most people first. It’s only when the players start nodding that he shifts everyone back into work-mode.

Only on Severance can we separate ourselves into work and life modes. Pretending that isn’t the case is counterproductive and toxic. But we can’t let one consume the other because it will ultimately degrade both our professional and personal lives.

As leaders, we need to find the balance between helping the humans grapple with real and personal issues and getting the team (back) on track and doing great work.

 

Ready to keep playing?

Baseball is a game of survival. A foul tip keeps the at bat alive. A walk keeps the inning alive. A bloop single to score a runner send the game into extra innings.

Winning takes patience and perseverance because the game is rarely won or lost in a single at-bat or inning. Just like you don’t win or lose your KPIs, OKRs, or BHAGs in a quarter.

As we start a new quarter, let’s keep it simple, focus on solving problems, and put people first.

Go get ‘em.

What Would You Do If You Were Certain?

What Would You Do If You Were Certain?

If you’re uncertain, you’re not alone. According to data from FactSet, 87% of Fortune 500 companies cited “uncertainty” during their 2025 Q1 earnings calls.  And while things are definitely a tad chaotic in the world, I’ve started asking my clients, “What would you do if you were certain?”

It’s not an academic thought experiment. It’s a very practical exercise that radically shifts the way the think about and lead their businesses.

An Example That Proves the Rule

Most leaders facing disruption do one of two things: freeze and hope that “this too shall pass” or follow and hope that there is safety in numbers.

Neither is a strategy. Both are knee jerk reactions rooted in fear and communicated in the language and buzzwords of business.

This behavior didn’t start with AI. It happens every time a disruptive technology or philosophy bursts onto the scene. The printing press. The industrial revolution. Microchips. Each time, a new leader and paradigm emerges. How do they do it?

They’re certain.

Not because they’re omniscient. But because they know the answers to three questions

 

Question 1: Who Are You?

When photography made academic realism obsolete, Picasso didn’t freeze. He didn’t pick up a camera. He created something entirely new. Why? Because he knew exactly who he was. “I don’t seek,” he said. “I find.”

Today’s business icons are no different. Richard Branson describes himself as curious and someone who challenges the status quo. Lou Gerstner, when he arrived at a floundering IBM, declared himself a results man, not a visionary.

These self-definitions aren’t marketing. They’re decisions filters that define what you are and aren’t willing to do, agnostic of events, technologies, and capabilities.

 

Question 2: What Does Your Organization Actually Do?

Not what you make. Not what you sell. What Job to be Done do customers hire you to do?

Nintendo’s answer has been consistent across 130 years of radical product change: help me have fun with friends and family. From playing cards to the Game Boy, Wii, and Switch, their products changed completely. The Job didn’t.

IBM has done the same. From punch card tabulators to consulting and AI, the Job of helping customers make sense of complex information to run better never change. Amex moved from freight forwarding to credit and debit cards, but it’s commitment to move value securely when direct exchange isn’t an option never wavered.

When you know the Job you do, you stop chasing trends and start making choices.

 

Question 3: How Do You Move Forward?

You can’t answer this question without answering the first two. When you try, you get caught in the same freeze/follow trap as everyone else.

But when you answer the first two questions, the answer to this one becomes clear. For Picasso and Branson, they create. For Gerstner, he optimized the status quo. For most businesses, the answer is “And, not Or.”  They must stabilize today’s business, step into (even follow) the next wave, and invest in creating the new.

Satya Nadella’s transformation of Microsoft is a perfect example. He defined himself as a learner, not a knower. He defined Microsoft’s job as helping people make a difference in their roles. From those two answers, every major move followed logically: maintain Office 365, step into cloud, create quantum computing technology.

None of it was reactive. All of it felt certain.

 

Your Moment Is Now

Yes, the world is uncertain. You don’t have to be.

Before you close this tab and tell yourself you’ll think about it later, answer the first two questions. You can change your answers later, but you need to start now.

The leaders who navigate this moment won’t be the ones who wait and see or follow the crowd. They’ll be the ones who know themselves and their organizations well enough to be certain.