In every organization, some teams consistently deliver outstanding results, while others—composed of equally talented professionals—struggle to gain traction. The gap isn’t found in technical skill or process improvement. It’s found in the interpersonal dynamics between colleagues, managers, and peers. What if the real bottleneck isn't a lack of talent, but rather how people navigate authority, collaboration, and day-to-day tension?

These dynamics play out in four critical areas: management, peer collaboration, decision-making, and conflict. Each context has its own rules and unspoken signals. Yet, most companies treat all professional relationships with a "one-size-fits-all" approach, failing to see that effectiveness comes from aligning these distinct contexts rather than forcing everyone into the same box.

Case 1: The silent marketing team.

Sophie leads five digital marketing specialists. In weekly meetings, she outlines goals, assigns tasks, and asks questions. Silence. She takes this as a sign of alignment. In reality, her team is frustrated. They want to be involved in the strategy, but they don't feel comfortable speaking up without an invitation. They are waiting for a door to open; Sophie thinks the door is already wide open. She believes she’s delegating; they feel like mere order-takers.

Have you ever left a meeting feeling that everything was clear, only to realize later that everyone had understood something different?

Case 2: The two project directors.

Thomas and Isabelle co‑lead a large‑scale project. Thomas naturally makes decisions quickly, informs the team by email, and moves forward. Isabelle prefers to validate each key step with him before communicating anything. She waits for his approval. He does not understand why she hesitates so much. There is no open conflict, but execution slows, and mutual frustration sets in. Both are highly competent. Their relational styles are simply out of sync.

What invisible cost do these relational frictions generate in terms of energy, time, and engagement?

Case 3: The invisible manager.

Martin supervises a highly autonomous technical team. He intervenes little, trusts his people, and lets the team manage its projects. Some team members appreciate this freedom and thrive. Others feel abandoned, lack direction, and need regular validation to confirm they are on the right track. Martin interprets their occasional requests as a lack of professional autonomy. They interpret his distance as a lack of interest in their work.

What if autonomy—so often praised in organizations—sometimes produced the opposite effect for certain profiles?

Where relational styles really matter at work.

These cases do not point to personality flaws or skill gaps; they reveal mismatches across four concrete relationship zones at work.

• Leadership relationship (with one’s manager): How individuals position themselves toward authority, what level of structure or autonomy they expect, and which signals from their manager make them feel supported or constrained.
• Collaboration among peers and team members: How involvement, participation, and shared influence actually happen in day‑to‑day work.
• Decision‑making and the exercise of influence: How direction is defined—swiftly and individually, or through consultation and shared validation.
• Conflict management and negotiation: How people react under pressure—by asserting authority, seeking compromise, or preserving relational harmony.

In Sophie’s team, the issue is not competence but a misalignment in participation and involvement—low expressed inclusion from the manager, high wanted inclusion from the team—within the peer/team collaboration zone.
Between Thomas and Isabelle, the friction lies in decision‑making and influence—two high control orientations meeting without an explicit operating model.
With Martin, the tension sits in relational proximity—some team members need more contact and recognition from their manager, others thrive on distance and autonomy.

Decoding invisible dynamics.

According to the FIRO‑B framework, relational orientations operate along two distinct directions: what people express toward others and what they want from others. This asymmetry creates the complexity of team dynamics. A manager may express low inclusion by not systematically inviting participation, while strongly wanting inclusion from their own superiors. A colleague may express high control by steering project direction, while wanting little control from others and preferring independence. An employee may express little affection through strictly professional interactions, while intensely wanting recognition and support from their manager.

These configurations create natural compatibilities or predictable frictions. When Sophie expresses little inclusion and her team wants high inclusion, the mismatch fuels disengagement. When Thomas and Isabelle both express high control, interactions become ongoing negotiations over decision territory. When Martin expresses little affection while some team members want more relational proximity, his style reads as indifference.

Building synergy through complementarity.

Team synergy does not arise from similar personalities, but from recognizing and harmonizing relational orientations. A high‑performing team is not one in which everyone operates the same way, but one in which complementary needs are mutually satisfied within the specific contexts of leadership, collaboration, decision‑making, and conflict resolution.

The tool that makes the invisible visible.

This is precisely where FIRO‑B comes in as a relational diagnostic instrument. Developed by Will Schutz, the assessment focuses on observable behavior in professional relationships and maps both expressed and wanted orientations. Unlike personality measures that assign categories, FIRO‑B clarifies how individuals relate to authority, how they collaborate with peers, how they make decisions and exercise influence, and how they approach conflict and negotiation. It offers a practical reading of everyday work interactions, not an abstract psychological label.

When Sophie and her team complete the FIRO‑B, the results objectively reveal what everyone had sensed vaguely. Sophie scores low on expressed inclusion—she does not spontaneously invite others to contribute. Her team, collectively, shows high wanted inclusion—they are waiting for exactly those invitations. The assessment judges no one; it simply exposes the structural gap in how leadership and participation are enacted in their team.

For Thomas and Isabelle, FIRO‑B identifies two profiles with high expressed control. Both want to influence decisions, define direction, and validate strategic choices. This insight reframes their tension as a process issue rather than a personal one, allowing them to design clear decision domains and escalation rules instead of clashing blindly.

Martin’s team reveals strong variability on the affection dimension. Some team members strongly want support and closeness; others very little. Martin himself both expresses and wants little affection at work, favoring functional relationships. FIRO‑B helps him see that his natural style—ideal for part of the team—deprives others of the relational signals they rely on to thrive professionally. Targeted check‑ins, explicit recognition rituals, and differentiated cadences address the gap without imposing uniform proximity.

From awareness to action.

FIRO‑B does not magically resolve team tensions. It provides the language and data to discuss them intelligently. Sophie can redesign meetings to include explicit invitations and structured rounds of input. Thomas and Isabelle can codify decision rights, thresholds for consultation, and tie‑break mechanisms. Martin can differentiate contact frequency and recognition practices based on individual expectations, offering more regular touchpoints to those who need them without imposing closeness on those who prefer autonomy.

This conscious adaptation of relational styles transforms collective dynamics. Teams stop operating on approximate intuition and begin deliberately orchestrating their interactions. Synergy emerges from an intentionally designed relational architecture—one that is continuously adjusted across leadership, collaboration, decision‑making, and conflict.

What would your team look like if these relational expectations became explicit at last?

For teams seeking to better understand their relational dynamics and adjust the way they work together, FIRO‑B provides a structured starting point. By objectifying each individual’s relational orientations, diffuse frictions can be transformed into levers for sustainable, conscious team synergy.

 

Other articles that may interest you : 

The Importance of human connections at work.

Team cohesion: strategies for productive and inspiring sessions.