Addressing hidden conflict in STEM Lead Teams

Working, as we do, in the biotech & STEM sectors, the “conflict” we see in the Lead Teams doesn’t usually look and feel like the conflict we’ve seen in other sectors like media or construction. There are no tables turned over or lever-arch files thrown across the desk. Not in my experience so far anyway.

Senior leaders in Science & Biotech are super smart, highly educated and outstanding experts in their field. They usually haven’t got there by shouting and screaming at each other. There can be a confusing difference between a team’s ability to debate scientific differences with no problem, yet a reluctance to explore relationship and personality differences.

Hidden conflict in science teams tends to have a slower burn, showing up as things like:

- Reluctance to share data and scientific findings

- Exclusion from a project or conversation without explanation

- Leaving a role and going elsewhere

- Status-wielding cutting-comments in the group meetings

- Side conversations and complaints about others’ performance

- Erosion of trust through conversations not-had.

Underlying grotty relationship niggles that start with misunderstandings, failure to share, accidental offensive moments, are often escalated and multiplied into more strategic, impactful horn-locking as people move up into the C-Suite. And it can feel hard to unravel them internally once they hit the lead team, if they’ve been ignored for months or years before.

When this happens, we’re often asked to come in and work with the whole team using our tried and tested Exec Team Coaching process of diagnostics, design, delivery, evaluation, iteration. The CEO or Chief People Officer is asking “How do we address the communication problem in our team?” when actually the braver question is “How do we stop one toxic relationship (or sometimes even one toxic set of behaviours from one person) from spilling over everything else in the team?” There’s a major risk that by avoiding the secretly raging solo elephant in the room, we’re addressing the wrong thing first and involving everyone unnecessarily. So much time and money can be mis-invested in a complex team journey, without ever actually naming the pain and asking the big question: “What are we tolerating in order to keep this one outstanding technical specialist in role?”

This is where we’d really encourage you to talk to us about where to start.

Intimate and focused Conflict Coaching can often cut to the chase much more effectively in this scenario than dancing around it with a whole team facilitation or High Performing Team coaching journey.

At Clearworks we have developed a specific “mediation-informed coaching” approach that enables us to work closely with two or more individuals who are grinding each other’s gears. The key difference from other methods is that it comprises steps to heal and restore working relationships after the mediation and coaching conversations. It aims to recontract the culture and expectations so that the improvement is ongoing and transformative over the long term. Leaders feel heard, understood, respected and gain a much higher level of self-awareness with an ability to begin to trust again. Along with that goes the invitation to try something new themselves, in order to make a breakthrough for both parties. Mediation-informed coaching can be absolutely turn-key in releasing tension in the SLT. Once people feel heard and equipped to make change, the shift can be rapid.

Some of the key steps in mediation-informed coaching are:

• The Coach meets each party individually online ahead of the deep work. Outcomes and goals are agreed for the work and consent & trust in the process and the Coach is sought from both or all parties. It cannot work if someone doesn’t want it to.
• One full day is allocated for the core deep work, with the Coach working first with one person and then the other, in the same morning. Both parties are offered a space to offload and reflect on the scenario, in confidence. In the afternoon, they co-create a safe conversation with the Coach’s assistance to identify some of the main areas of difficulty. Impact and aspirations are agreed.
• We’ll also encourage leaders to do some of this work outdoors and away from HQ to break the stalemate and introduce some perspective – literal and metaphorical.
• Follow up coaching online after the event embeds and integrates the work.

Our methods have developed from years of specialist working in this technical sector. Being able to gain respect and trust from senior scientists is no mean feat, and it’s integral to our work. If this is a familiar in your STEM SLT, you’ll know how important it is to have coaches who can earn and keep the respect of your scientific leaders. 

When is mediation-informed coaching the right place to start?

Not every difficult working relationship needs mediation-informed coaching. Robust disagreement is essential in science. Different interpretations of data, competing strategic priorities and challenge between disciplines can all improve the quality of a decision.

The concern is not that senior leaders disagree. It’s that the disagreement has become personal, repetitive or hidden.

Some signs that a more focused intervention may be needed include:

• The same two people repeatedly reach an impasse.
• Colleagues are noticing that all roads and arguments lead to the same couple of people.
• Colleagues are adapting meetings to prevent a confrontation.
• Decisions are being delayed, revisited or skipped because key people can’t agree.
• Information is being withheld or shared selectively.
• Other members of the leadership team are being drawn into side conversations.
• Others are feeling weary or disheartened by the ongoing irritations.
• People are discussing the relationship everywhere except with each other.
• One or both leaders are considering leaving.
• The CEO or People Director is spending increasing amounts of time managing the fallout – but not managing the source.

At this point, another team awayday about communication is likely to end the same way. The issue needs to be named without judgement, contained and worked through with the people most closely involved. Good people with good brains are 99.9% of the time working with good intention. They didn’t mean this mess to develop and often they’d be relieved to have to stop. Approaching the situation without judgement but with a determination to end the impasse is critical.

What if one person is simply behaving badly?

Coaching should not be used to disguise a conduct, capability or accountability issue. Nor should mediation place equal responsibility on two people when the evidence clearly shows that one person is bullying, discriminating, threatening or repeatedly breaching agreed standards.

Sometimes the organisation already knows what needs to happen, but is hoping that a coach can avoid the need for a difficult management decision. That isn’t fair on the team, the coach or the individual concerned.

Part of our initial work is therefore to help the CEO or Chief People Officer distinguish between:

• A damaged but potentially repairable relationship.
• A conflict created by unclear roles, decision rights or competing objectives.
• A pattern of behaviour requiring direct leadership or HR action.
• A wider cultural problem that needs work with the whole leadership team.

These situations can overlap. Getting clearer about what is actually happening helps the organisation choose the right starting point. Sometimes one big Exec Coaching conversation with the People Leader is enough to bring on the required change. This is a great place to start.

Can two senior leaders rebuild trust?

Yes, sometimes, of courses they can. More often than not, in our experience, the sense of relief that the relationship can have a reboot, is more than enough for ethical scientific leaders to make a transformative step together.

In an executive team, the first aim is to restore a working relationship that is sufficiently honest, respectful and dependable for the organisation to function well. No need to be besties or pals. That might mean being able to challenge each other without contempt, share relevant information consistently, make decisions without reopening old battles and address new tensions before they accumulate.

Trust is rarely restored through one dramatic conversation. It is rebuilt through small, observable commitments that are then kept.

Those commitments might include:

• Sharing particular information earlier.
• Agreeing who needs to be involved in which decisions.
• Raising concerns directly rather than through other colleagues.
• Checking an assumption before attributing a negative motive.
• Naming the effect of a comment or behaviour when it happens.
• Agreeing how to handle disagreement in front of the wider team.
• Reviewing progress after an agreed period.

What does a successful outcome look like?

Success does not necessarily mean complete agreement or the disappearance of all tension. In a senior scientific team, that probably wouldn’t be desirable anyway. Positive tension is an aspirational characteristic of a high performing team.

Instead, we look for practical changes in how the leaders work together.

• Conversations become more direct.
• Decisions move more quickly.
• Information flows more freely.
• Meetings require less careful choreography from the CEO.
• Other colleagues are no longer recruited as intermediaries, witnesses or allies.

The people involved should also have a clearer understanding of their own contribution to the pattern. They may still find each other irritating; they may continue to have very different personalities, priorities and ways of thinking. But they are better able to work with those differences without allowing them to disrupt the team.

Occasionally, the honest outcome is that the working relationship cannot be repaired sufficiently. Even then, a properly held process can bring clarity and allow decisions to be made more thoughtfully, rather than after another six months of avoidance and frustration.

Where should a biotech CEO or People Director start?

Start with a confidential, no obligation conversation with us about what you are noticing.

You don’t need to reach a diagnosis or decide in advance whether you need mediation, conflict coaching, team coaching or facilitated discussion.

We will help you think through:

• What is happening and how long it has been happening.
• Who is directly involved and who is being affected.
• What has already been tried.
• Whether the situation is safe and appropriate for coaching.
• Whether the work should begin with individuals, a pair or the wider team.
• What a realistic and worthwhile outcome would look like.

Sometimes the answer will be a focused mediation-informed coaching process between two leaders. Sometimes we will recommend starting elsewhere. Either way, the first task is to name the real problem rather than wrapping it in a broad request to “improve communication within the team”.

Hidden conflict is still conflict. Left alone, it can quietly consume leadership time, slow decisions, undermine trust and eventually cost the organisation some of its best people.

But it does not always require a huge programme of work. A carefully structured intervention, with the right people in the room and the difficult issue finally spoken aloud, can begin to shift a relationship surprisingly quickly.

In our company values, we mention “Fair exchange” and within that, there’s a phrase “We’ll avoid unnecessary extra charges and work in agile ways. We won’t hold back if we can see ways to deliver more without charge.”

This is a key area that has troubled me for some time, where leadership consultancies continue to sell complex High Performing Team journeys when the nub of the issue is actually two bright sparks, driving each other around the bend.

If any of this feels familiar in your biotech or STEM leadership team, contact Clearworks for an initial confidential conversation. There is no obligation to commission a programme. We’ll help you work out what the situation needs, and where it makes most sense to begin.
And in shock news, if you're the CEO and this is happeneing on your watch, sometimes the right place to start is in fact, working in trust with you..