Support or challenge? Why difficult teams usually need both
When poor behaviour or conflict emerges in a team, leaders often feel pressure to respond quickly.
The situation may already be affecting performance, wellbeing or service delivery. Complaints may be escalating. People may be asking why nothing has been done.
In these circumstances, leaders commonly move towards one of two positions.
Some become highly challenging and directive.
Others become highly supportive and cautious.
Both responses are understandable. But neither is sufficient on its own.
The leader who moves straight to challenge
Some leaders respond to team conflict by taking firm and immediate control. They may say:
“This behaviour needs to stop.”
“We are going to get everyone together and resolve this.”
“These are the standards I expect from now on.”
There are circumstances in which this clarity is necessary. Leaders have a responsibility to set behavioural expectations and address conduct that is harmful or inappropriate. The problem arises when challenge comes before understanding.
If people feel that a leader has reached a conclusion without listening to them, a firm intervention can feel threatening rather than reassuring.
Team members may comply publicly while becoming less open privately. They may stop raising concerns or sharing information. Existing groups and alliances may become more defensive.
The behaviour can move out of sight rather than genuinely changing.
The leader who provides support but avoids accountability
Other leaders take a very different approach.
They listen sympathetically. They acknowledge the strain people are under. They encourage employees to express how they feel.
But they find it difficult to follow this with clear expectations or consequences.
This may happen because the leader fears making the situation worse. They may worry that people will leave, become more distressed or raise formal complaints.
They may also feel personally uncomfortable with confrontation.
However, listening without action can create its own risks.
People who are being harmed may conclude that leadership is unwilling to protect them. Those engaging in inappropriate behaviour may receive the message that there are no meaningful boundaries.
Over time, the leader’s attempts to preserve harmony can allow the situation to become more entrenched.
Why leaders default to one side
Conflict is stressful for leaders as well as employees.
When under pressure, people often rely more heavily on familiar habits. A leader who is naturally decisive may become more controlling. A leader who values relationships may become more accommodating.
The question is not whether support or challenge is better.
The question is whether the leader can use both appropriately.
Effective leadership in a difficult team requires the ability to:
listen without immediately defending or explaining;
understand the context behind behaviour;
recognise distress, uncertainty and threat;
state clearly what behaviour is unacceptable;
hold people accountable fairly;
provide support for change; and
remain consistent when challenged.
Psychological safety does not mean avoiding difficult conversations
Psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood as creating an environment in which everyone feels comfortable all the time.
That is not the aim.
A psychologically safe team is one in which people can raise concerns, acknowledge mistakes, disagree and ask for help without fearing humiliation or unfair punishment.
It does not mean that all behaviour is accepted.
In fact, a lack of accountability can reduce psychological safety. When harmful behaviour is ignored, employees may learn that speaking up will make little difference.
The most effective response is often compassionate accountability.
This means trying to understand where behaviour is coming from while still being clear about its impact and the need for change.
It allows a leader to say:
“I want to understand what has led us here, and this behaviour still cannot continue.”
Those two statements are not contradictory.
Questions leaders can ask themselves
When responding to a difficult team situation, leaders may benefit from considering:
Am I moving to action before I fully understand the issue?
Am I avoiding a necessary conversation because I fear the reaction?
Have I heard from everyone affected, or only a small number of voices?
Are expectations clear?
Have expectations been applied consistently?
Do people know what will happen next?
Am I providing enough support for people to change their behaviour?
Am I unintentionally rewarding those who are most forceful or vocal?
These questions can help leaders recognise whether they are relying too heavily on support or challenge.
The leadership task is balance
Difficult team dynamics are rarely resolved through firmness alone.
They are also rarely resolved through empathy alone.
People need to feel heard. They also need clarity.
They need psychological safety. They also need behavioural boundaries.
They need leaders who are curious enough to understand the problem and courageous enough to address it.
How I can help
I support leaders and organisations navigating conflict, poor behaviour and complex team dynamics.
My work helps leaders understand what is driving the situation, identify what may be unintentionally reinforcing it and develop an approach that balances support, challenge and accountability.
When team conflict has become difficult to manage internally, an independent psychological perspective can help create a clearer and more constructive route forward.
Nicole Williams is an occupational and coaching psychologist specialising in culture repair, team dynamics and psychologically safe workplaces.
Comments