Many assumptions have been made regarding the value of working together in teams, one being that people will perform better as part of a team than they will on their own. Working collectively can stimulate people to perform at higher levels, but only when there is a means of recognizing differences and resolving disagreements between team members.

The rationale for this disclaimer is that most people avoid stating their opinions or making critical remarks in public, wishing to avoid the potentially negative consequences of “speaking out of turn.” 

During our formative years, parents and teachers, serving as social guides, warned us against the perils of outspokenness. In their role as social guides they emphasized the value of cooperation and the importance of not making waves. Repetitive injunctions like “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all,” clearly warned us to remain silent in the presence of people we don’t know.

Fear of reprisal

The supposed intention of these childhood admonitions was to teach us how to avoid offending other people. It’s more likely that the underlying purpose was to keep us from embarrassing our social guides in front of their peers.

Most of us can remember the condemnation that followed an innocent childhood disclosure of a family secret in front of company. That lesson, once taught, is seldom forgotten. As adults, we still tend to avoid discussing issues that might provoke retribution from peers or anger from superiors. 

That was then, this in now. As we form ourselves into teams, with our different styles, values, and behavioral patterns, and try to work together, there are bound to be disagreements. Acting as though they don’t exist—treating it as a undiscussable “no-no” erects barriers between members of the team. If a work unit doesn’t have a method for resolving interpersonal differences, that unit will eventually become dysfunctional.

This effect is cumulative: there is a direct correlation between the number of items on the “no-no” list and the level of dysfunction within a work unit. That is, the longer the list, the higher the level of dysfunction. It is important to understand how unresolved issues, stored on the team’s “no-no” list, relate to the four stages of organizational dysfunction.  

First, ambiguity is not questioned. 

A vague directive has a team member being presented with two ways of doing something, but she does not point this out or ask for the ambiguity to be clarified.

Second, inconsistencies are ignored. 

The new rule is followed by some team members but broken by others, yet nothing is said the rule violators.

Third, ambiguities and inconsistencies are undiscussable.

It becomes politically incorrect to openly talk about the existence of ambiguities and inconsistencies. Team members won’t risk getting themselves or others into trouble by sharing real issues and telling the truth. 

Fourth, undiscussability is undiscussable.

Team members ignore the fact that ambiguities and inconsistencies cannot be openly discussed. Silence during meetings not only implies that these issues don’t exist; it also signals that the absence of open discussion wouldn’t be talked about either.

You can tell when a “no-no” list exists because your teammates avoid open discussions of relevant issues. Rather, they bog down in never-ending debates over mundane issues like copy machine usage, personal telephone calls, office furniture purchases, computer upgrades and whether there should be macaroni or potato salad at the department picnic.

Over-reaction to a simple mistake is another clue that bigger, unstated issues are buried on the “no-no” list. The longer the list gets, the more tense and anxious people become to avoid discussing critical issues for fear of provoking a fight or igniting a firestorm of anger.  

Few people can thrive for very long in the tension-filled environment that inevitably results when the team is unable or unwilling to discuss the items on the “no-no” list. Unless the pattern changes, the list will continue to grow until the unit chokes on the volume of undiscussable issues.

The objective at this point should be to pull the team together and work through the entire “no-no” list. Typically, the heaviest issues top the list. Not only did they surface first, but also they have been there so long that they have taken on additional weight. More recent items—which have been tacked onto the bottom of the list—are much less significant. That’s why it’s best to start at the bottom with the least significant issues and work your way up the list, building trust as the issues become more impactful.