When people act in ways contradictory to their stated values and principles, it creates a trap. If we call attention to the contradiction, we risk conflict and uncomfortable exposure for the other person.

That can lead to another contradiction—we say we value openness and honesty, but tend to stay quiet about the problem in public and complain in private. Research from Argyris (2010) has found such self-contradictory behavior to be quite common even in successful organizations. This occurs with difficult situations, especially "when problems to be solved are likely to be upsetting and threatening to all concerned." Traps impair collaboration and problem solving.

Four methods to decrease risk in addressing the trap: (1) treat imperfect adherence to stated values as an expected, normal human reaction to complexity and pressure; (2) explicitly state a desire for and pursue mutual reflection and inquiry; (3) self disclose about our own uneasiness and contradictions; and (4) appreciate the other’s good intentions. For an excellent brief review of the work of Argyris, see Senge, The Fifth Discipline, pages 232 – 240.

Quality of relationships at work is facilitated by asking questions with genuine intent to learn. But, this is a surprisingly hard art and skill, especially under stress. For a list of useful questions, see:Questions that drive change.

The most powerful determinant of team success may happen before a team ever meets. Researchers (Wageman et al, 2008; Hackman, 2011) estimate that the highest contribution to eventual team performance is the quality of pre-work a leader does in defining team purpose, composition and design.

Quality of team launch is second. Real-time coaching is a third, though small, factor. Of interest: the best coaching appears not to have much benefit for teams without good up-front design; and individual coaching of team members does not lead to much improvement—the team needs to be coached as a whole. 

Having trouble keeping up with models of leadership? Latest count: more than 110,000 leadership books on Amazon.

Historical data from Amazon.co.uk shows 14,000 books in 2003 to more than 85,000 in 2014 (from Keith Grint, Leadership, 2010). If the search is narrowed to "organizational leadership" you “only” need to read 20,000 books--maybe if you did not eat or sleep for a full year you could keep up.

More data:49,990 books on Amazon on organizational change and 86,799 on change management. Finally: 559,000,000 Google entries on leadership today, 25,300,000 on organizational leadership.

A critical factor for successful teams is all too frequently done poorly or not at all—clear team norms.  In research on 120 senior leader teams from many industries, teams with outstanding performance (48% of teams studied) had much higher rates of clear norms than those with poor and mediocre effectiveness (Wageman et al, 2008).

Another researcher found clear norms to be more strongly associated with team effectiveness than any other factor that was measured (Hackman, 2011). Though conceptually simple, team norms are about creating group behavioral habits and this takes collective vigilance, repetition, and patience.

Multiple researchers (e.g. Ellis, Argyris) find that, no matter how smart and successful people are, everyone falls into counterproductive behavior at times—especially under complexity and stress.

The good news: this means that at any given moment what we see around us as lack of communication or "people" skills could, not infrequently, be a temporary, quite human reaction to complexity and stress.

And, at any given moment, there is likely to be a large amount of unused leadership capacity in any organization to tap into. For more research see: Invisible Barriers to Communication

At a recent workshop on leadership, 94% of 153 participants from different organizations stated they currently face a challenging work situation due to problematic relationships and that the situation significantly impacts their work-lives.

59% of these situations had been going on 6 months or longer.

In “The Elephant in the Room,” Diana McLain Smith states that how we handle relationships is a critical CHOICE for success in organizations---that is, the outcomes are not fixed by personality and disposition.

The workshop data suggests that relationship issues are a particularly large elephant.

To what extent can you expect your most visionary speech to move others to action in the workplace? See the article The impact of a visionary speech.

Right now, what percent of leaders face a challenging work situation with problematic behaviors in people and which, if improved, would significantly impact their work-lives?

At a recent workshop, the answer was 91% of 263 leaders.

The main causes of situational behavior are captured in Kurt Lewin’s equation  B = f (P, E)—behavior (B) is a function (f) of the person (P) (e.g. personality) and the environment (E). In tough situations, the human tendency is to blame (P). The ability to influence change depends substantially on focusing on (E).