Ellen is a project manager in a small software development firm. She is well organized and enjoys working with people. She has enough of a technical background to connect with her team and excels in her management skills. Her boss, Jeri, is an idea person, very creative and tireless. Dedicated to the company and the mission, she is the heart of the organization.

Jeri and Ellen recognize their different strengths and styles and genuinely respect one another. The team, however, began complaining to Ellen that Jeri was driving them crazy. Jeri frequently interrupted tasks by floating ideas, asking seemingly random questions, and suggesting alternative ways of doing things. Individual team members felt put on the spot and often didn’t know how to respond. Was Jeri looking for them to give an opinion or make a decision? And where did Ellen fit into this? The general perception was that Jeri was indecisive, was not so subtlety undermining Ellen’s authority, and perhaps didn’t respect her. Ellen, too, was getting frustrated with Jeri.

As morale dropped, Ellen suggested to Jeri that some team building and communication training might be necessary. Although Jeri was reluctant, she deferred to Ellen’s judgment. Jeri hadn’t consciously experienced the negative morale but knew that Ellen was sensitive to others and was likely correct in her assessment.

What we discovered in the team workshop was that Jeri didn’t understand the effect she was having on the team. What had been the disruptive and random discussions she had initiated with team members were constructive to her. They had helped clarify her thinking and provided an important link for her with individuals on the team. She liked the one-on-one, thinking-out-loud conversations that connected her with the people she worked with. Jeri is naturally collaborative but hadn’t recognized her impact as an authority figure.

The team members hadn’t seen Jeri’s talk as brainstorming. The function of her discussion wasn’t clear, let alone the focus. Because Jeri is Ellen’s boss, the lines of authority were confused for the team, and individuals often wondered if they were getting different “orders” than those Ellen had given them.

From understanding the communication styles and purposes, we saw a need for a new group working structure to accommodate and support the differences. Jeri and Ellen began meeting daily, first thing, instead of weekly as they had been. These daily meetings were short and allowed Jeri to think out loud with Ellen about product development and to elicit from Ellen who on the team could help her with any specifics she needed. During the meeting, they could also address other work-flow processes and management or policy issues.

Clarifying impact, roles, and specific communication structures eased tension in the team. Jeri and Ellen worked together more closely, drawing on their strengths and establishing clearer boundaries for themselves and the team as they collaborated on decisions.