The Solution is in the Tension
High-performance environments require teams to be in precision alignment on direction and purpose, with total clarity on roles, responsibilities, and operational dynamics.
But, with any environment, the landscape is in constant flux. High-performing teams must navigate these variables with outside-in thinking, ‘on-our-toes’ agility, and quick decision-making. No plan stands still. While purpose stays, we make room for change and remain ready to adapt.
However, not all team members respond to the experience of the journey in the same manner. Some thrive in an unpredictable environment, while others perform best when there is certainty.
This is where tensions can arise. These needs might feel contradictory, but what if the tension between them is where high-performance begins?
The solution is in the tension – by exploring competing requirements or viewpoints, we uncover valuable information from each position. The tension reveals what needs attention, but understanding it can lead to a solution that adds the greatest value.
How can we incorporate this approach into our high-performance leadership toolbox?
Both Positions Matter
Consider your attempts to balance giving team members autonomy, while providing direction. Too much direction can leave them waiting for instruction, reluctant to take responsibility. Too little can create confusion, duplicated effort and uncertainty about what success looks like.
The solution is in the tension – each position reveals something that the other overlooks. What does each side actually need? Clear expectations and agreed boundaries, with enough freedom to decide how the work gets done.
Resist the Rush to Resolve
When the pressure rises, it is tempting to simplify:
- “We need results now, so let’s delay development”
- “We need to be supportive, so avoid any difficult conversations”
- “We need consistency from the team, manage them in the same way for now”
Each statement protects something valuable, and risks losing something valuable:
- Delaying development may protect immediate output, but could leave the team less capable over the medium to long-term
- Avoiding difficult conversations may preserve comfort right now, but could allow frustrations to grow
- Supporting the team identically may appear fair, but overlooks differences in experience and requirements
The solution is in the tension – how can we support these competing needs by investing our leadership time more tactically? The question prompts a far more valuable response than a one-sided reaction.
Make the Tension Practical
Picture the high-performing team member who has started missing deadlines. They’re managing a super-demanding workload and clearly need support. However, they are also part of a delivery matrix, and their teammates need reliable delivery.
The temptation might be to lean on empathy because they are a valuable member of the team and we want to tread carefully. Our empathy doesn’t solve the issue, and it may project ‘tolerance’, an acceptance of missed commitments. Equally, the manager that leans on accountability will be demanding improvement, without understanding what’s getting in the way.
The solution is in the tension – developing a stronger conversation, that brings both issues into the chat, allows all stakeholders to see the whole challenge. By demonstrating empathy, understanding and support, while also outlining a reminder of the obligations, we move to discussing what changes are needed, what help is required, and what we can commit to.
Support makes the conversation constructive. Accountability gives it purpose.
Turn Disagreement into Information
How often do we notice that one teammate wants to move quickly, while another wants more time to check the plan? It’s easy for us to label one ‘reckless’ and the other ‘obstructive’. But the disagreement may reveal two legitimate concerns: the cost of delay, and the cost of getting something wrong. It prompts us to ask useful questions, to reveal a more valuable approach:
- Which decisions are reversable?
- What evidence would help justify changing direction?
- What should we check before moving forward?
- How could we test on a smaller scale?
The solution is in the tension – the disagreement helps to shape a better decision. The value lies in examining the competing viewpoints, instead of favouring or dismissing them.
Make a Decision, and Keep Learning
Working with tension is not equal to delaying action. Leaders must still make decisions, communicate their reasoning, and take responsibility for delivering outcomes. But, when making a decision, there is missed value in pretending that the competing needs have disappeared. A simplified resolution doesn’t offer the same value as the broader considerations, for example:
- The manager prioritises urgent delivery, but provides an understanding on when postponed development will resume
- The manager introduces closer oversight during a challenging project, but also outlines when greater autonomy will return
The solution is in the tension – the balance might change as circumstances change, but what matters is that the trade-off is visible. If two legitimate demands pull in different directions, pause to understand what each is protecting then use that understanding to make a better decision.
