Case study: Feedback

The following comments are provided as food for thought. Different interpretations are, of course, possible.

What does Ivan see as the main causes of his prob lems with his US colleagues?

Ivan sees the fact that his American colleagues change their minds so often as a sign of their lack of professional competence. He views culture as being the problem. He believes that what he sees as his colleagues’ inability to listen — and their lack of understanding of the European context — is a reflection of American culture.

What do you think are the causes of these problems?

There are many dimensions here. Ivan’s emotional state is one of frustration. He is not creative in thinking about solutions; he is only describing problems. This frustration may itself have caused interpersonal problems; it is possible that his US colleagues interpret this as disrespect and have disengaged with Ivan. Ivan describes his US colleagues as “fuzzy” and “evasive”, but it may simply be that they prefer a more indirect and relationship-based form of communication and that they find Ivan to be rude.

There also seems to be a systemic weakness in the organization that allows late changes to be made as a result of marketing surveys. Haukur’s patient leadership style and his desire to avoid conflict may also be part of the problem. He allows Ivan to express negative assumptions about his US colleagues without challenging them. And by proposing that he (not Ivan) speak to the US colleagues, Hauker exercises a high level of decision-making control. Finally, he doesn’t seem to realize that his own very flexible start-up practices and processes may no longer be suitable for his organization.

What steps should Haukur take to resolve these problems?

Haukur’s staff are uncertain about each other as people and professionals, creating the potential for misunderstandings. Haukur needs to encourage them to invest more time in understanding each other’s motivations, talents and roles. The team also needs a clear common project management framework. And establishing agreed project targets, linked to individual performance targets, may support a process of change that leads to a more structured and collaborative working culture.

Haukur’s strong belief in diversity may be leading him to underestimate the potential negative biases that his staff have. Training in cognitive bias might be one solution. A team workshop to map similarities and differences in expectations of teamwork would also allow individuals to discuss differences openly and agree on norms for collaboration. Finally, Haukur could change the attitude to conflict in the organization. If tension and conflict were welcomed, documented and discussed as a force for innovation, the collaborative potential could increase significantly. Haukur could establish the principle that “conflict is useful”, and encourage people to speak their minds openly and to propose constructive solutions. At the same time, Haukur should take urgent action to discourage gossip and blaming, as these can hinder collaboration in the team.