Article
Reducing Silo-Mentality and Getting Teams to Collaborate
August 24, 2020

Develop A Collaborative Environment
The team leader plays a key role in creating a team culture or climate. If you want to work with a team where there’s an expectation that people will collaborate, and where team members actively look for ways to support one another, it is up to you to consciously build that team.
When assembling a team, whether new hires or from within the organization, look for people who are team players. That means that their competitive spirit is aimed at achieving goals and winning for the team, rather than on raising their own status or trying to one-up their colleagues. Some people view the world as a zero-sum game, where there are limited resources and they must compete to get their fair share. This is the opposite of an attitude of abundance that assumes that we can all win if we work together and there is enough for everyone. Competitiveness is fine when it comes to the organization’s external competitors but has a decidedly negative impact when it is social competitiveness and winning at the expense of other team members.
Our own research at Hagberg Consulting Group makes this abundantly clear. Social competitiveness – people who feel the need to compete with their co-workers – is negatively correlated with openness to input, listening, building partnerships, building relationships, information sharing, and forthrightness. Not the profile of an effective team member!
Stack ranking is a procedure, popularized in the 1980s by GE’s CEO Jack Welch, of ranking employees according to a bell curve. In that system, the top 10% are designated as top performers, while the bottom 10%, seen as a drag on the organization’s effectiveness, are routinely let go. Stack ranking fosters internal competition of employee vs. employee as they strive for high marks, and it stifles innovation. “In a hyper-competitive workplace,” wrote Max Nilson in Business Insider, “where management is essentially asking employees to outperform the people sitting next to them, employees don't have an incentive to share ideas or collaborate.” People focus on their own performance, “rather than working together toward broader goals. And at its most extreme, employees may focus on preventing others from excelling.” After all, you might not want to help a fellow team member because you may be the one who gets fired if he does better than you. [“Why Stack Ranking Is A Terrible Way To Motivate Employees,” Max Nilson, Business Insider Nov. 15, 2013] No wonder people experienced it as a morale killer.
On the other hand, here are some suggestions for building a collaborative, cooperative environment:
- Strengthen relationships. It is important for the leader to continually look for ways to build cohesion and strengthen relationships and bonds between members. Whether it is a meeting whose primary focus is helping team members get to know each other in more depth, a team dinner once a month, or a planning off-site that includes activities that help members get together just for fun and socializing, can go a long way toward increasing team coherence. Also, beware of having such a rigorous and rigid agenda-focus in your meetings that you don’t leave any time for informal discussion and personal sharing. This may not always be possible or desirable, but should be built in whenever feasible.
- Encourage communication between team members. The team leader also needs to encourage communication between team members and avoid relying on the “hub and spoke” style, where communication is primarily one-on-one between the leader and individuals. That style is familiar and comfortable for independent-minded entrepreneurs, but it is not helpful for building teams or evolving solutions to complex problems that require communication and collaboration among various specialties. Encourage team members to develop deeper connections amongst themselves, so that decisions do not always revolve around you. (Why? Because if you are not available at crunch time, how will decisions be made?)
- Beware of silos. In rapidly growing organizations there is always a threat that organizational silos will develop, and teams will focus narrowly on their own agendas and priorities, even to the point of resenting or stereotyping “those people over in sales,” and so on. To counteract this tendency, you need to foster communication between teams, and organize regular meetings between them to coordinate efforts, develop mutual understanding, and learn to collaborate.
- Promote cross-functional teamwork. When silos do develop and people think primarily about their own team or functional agenda, they lose track of what others need and the challenges they may be facing. This mind-set can lead to a reluctance to communicate, coordinate, or cooperate, even to share information or resources with other individuals, departments or teams. As the leader, if you see this happening, let everyone know that you want every team member to be aware of, and sensitive to, not only the projects others are working on, but what they need in order to be most effective. When teams and team members are called upon to cooperate with other teams to work on certain problems and projects, you can make this collaboration more fruitful if you discuss with everyone involved areas where the teams need to work together, what each needs from the other team, and how they can partner most effectively.
- Organize cross-functional meetings . Interdependent teams should meet regularly to clarify mutual goals and roles, sort out ongoing issues and problems, create plans and solutions together, and support each other. Product and Engineering, for example, could meet once a month or even more often, to share what they are working on, what their priorities are, what problems they are facing, and coordinate their efforts. As the leader, help everyone understand what each team needs from the other(s), their problems and priorities, and encourage them to develop empathy rather than looking at the other group as “them”. Be careful to discourage any “us versus them” thinking or negative stereotyping of the other group.
- Encourage active participation in meetings.
Encourage team members to participate and openly share their ideas and perspectives. Do your best to get people involved. Facilitate dialogue between team members. Draw them out. “Maria, we haven’t heard from you on this new initiative. What do you think about it?” Or, “That’s a good idea. How can we build on it?”
- Reduce the fear factor.
Be sure your attitude and demeanor in meetings does not intimidate others, but makes them feel that their presence and their ideas are welcome and appreciated. On the other hand, some people may need to be motivated by the awareness that there will be consequences if they don’t deliver. So this is another area where a balance of leadership styles and approaches may be needed.
- Build a team culture of collaboration.
Starting with your own example, encourage team members to make a strong personal commitment to the success of other members, and not be focused entirely on their own achievements. This requires a spirit and expectation of collaboration and cooperation between team members and fostering a strong common identity, rather than an “us versus them” mentality.
- “How can I help with that?”
As team leader, a major part of your job is to find out what people need, where they are stuck, where they might need more resources, and facilitate the solution. Team members can follow your example, talk to each other about what they are working on, and ask, “How could I help you with that?” Often there is a way to contribute directly to someone else’s part of a project because of the diversity of backgrounds and expertise, but even if there is not, just letting others know you have their back and are available if they need you promotes a spirit of collegiality and mutual support. And don’t forget: on a team, each person’s achievements and successes are not just for the individual, but contribute to the success of the whole.
- Don’t avoid problems. Effective problem-solving and decision-making involves surfacing troublesome issues and bringing up differing views for consideration. When there are problems between the groups, don’t let them fester. Discuss what is and isn’t working and how the communication and collaboration can be improved. The leader needs to actively guide this process, to bring out the best ideas and insights.
- Re-assess your role
. Learn to see yourself not so much as “the boss” or “the decider” but rather as a facilitator of effective problem-solving and communication.
- Model collaborative behavior.
Getting to the core of an issue and making the right decision also requires the leader to model collaborative behavior, not an easy task for those who have largely been individual contributors, but an essential role to learn to play.
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles

Some of the smartest leaders you will ever meet are also some of the hardest people to work with. They are fast, perceptive, and unusually strong at solving hard problems. They see patterns others miss. They cut through ambiguity. They grasp systems, strategy, and complexity at a very high level. In many cases, those gifts are exactly why they became founders, technical leaders, or senior executives. And yet many of these same people leave a trail of strained relationships behind them. Their direct reports feel unseen or intimidated. Peers experience them as dismissive, impatient, or controlling. Their bosses admire their intellect but hesitate to trust them with broader leadership responsibility. At home, partners often feel emotionally alone. Over time, the leader becomes puzzled. They know they are smart, committed, and often right. So why do people keep pulling away, withholding the truth, or failing to fully follow them? The answer is that many high IQ leaders are working from an incomplete model of effectiveness. They assume that if they think clearly, argue logically, work hard, and produce results, the rest should take care of itself. That model can work for a long time in school, in technical roles, and in the early stages of a company. But eventually leadership becomes less about the quality of your own mind and more about your ability to work through the minds, emotions, motivations, and limitations of other people. That is where many smart leaders start to fail. The Core Problem Intelligence is not the problem. It is an asset. The problem is that intelligence often creates distortions. It can make a leader overestimate the power of logic, underestimate the importance of emotion, and develop habits that quietly damage trust. It can also create a subtle arrogance. Not always the loud kind, but the quieter assumption that if other people are slower, less rigorous, or more emotional, they must be the problem. Once a leader starts living inside that assumption, interpersonal trouble becomes almost inevitable. Five Common Patterns 1. Overreliance on reason Many bright leaders treat relationships as if they are mainly cognitive systems. If there is disagreement, they explain more. If someone is upset, they analyze the issue. If morale is low, they offer strategy. If a direct report feels discouraged, they give solutions. In their minds they are being helpful and efficient. But the other person often feels bypassed. Their emotional reality is treated as noise rather than information. Their need to be heard is mistaken for a need to be corrected. This is a major blind spot in analytical leaders. They often do not realize that understanding is not the same as persuasion, and problem solving is not the same as relationship building. A person can agree with your logic and still not trust you. They can accept your decision and still lose commitment because the relational cost was too high. 2. Impatience High horsepower people often process faster than the people around them. They see the answer early. They get bored by slower thinking, frustrated by repetition, and irritated when others need more context than they do. This can make them decisive and productive. It can also make them hard to work with. They interrupt. They jump ahead. They finish other people’s sentences. They push past concerns before others feel understood. They make those around them feel slow, clumsy, or not worth listening to. This teaches the organization something dangerous. It teaches people that the leader’s mind is the only one that really counts. The safest strategy becomes speaking briefly, deferring quickly, or waiting until the leader has already decided. Then the leader complains that the team is passive or not taking ownership. What they often do not see is that the culture has adapted to them. 3. Emotional underdevelopment hidden by cognitive strength Very bright people can use intellect as a defense against emotional discomfort. They can analyze instead of feel. They can explain instead of reflect. They can argue instead of absorb. They can move to abstraction when the deeper issue is shame, fear, insecurity, hurt, or loneliness. They are often unaware this is happening. They do not experience themselves as defended. They experience themselves as rational. But leadership requires emotional range. Not sentimentality. Not therapeutic language. Real range. The ability to notice your own reactions before they control your behavior. The ability to tolerate feeling wrong, uncertain, criticized, or less competent than you want to appear. The ability to stay present when another person is disappointed, anxious, or angry without immediately shutting it down, fixing it, or counterattacking. Leaders who cannot do this often become brittle. They look composed until challenged in just the wrong way. Then out comes defensiveness, coldness, contempt, withdrawal, or overcontrol. 4. Low interpersonal curiosity Smart leaders are often highly curious about ideas, products, markets, and strategy, but not necessarily about people. They know how to interrogate problems, but not always how to explore another person’s inner world. They ask what happened, but not what it felt like. They want the conclusion, not the hesitation. They want the output, not the psychology. People do not trust leaders simply because they are competent. They trust leaders who show that they are trying to understand them. Interpersonal curiosity communicates respect. A leader does not have to agree with someone to make that person feel seen. But when the leader skips that step, people feel reduced to functions rather than treated as human beings. 5. Weak awareness of impact Many smart leaders are genuinely surprised by how strongly people react to them. They tell themselves, “I was just being direct,” or “I was only asking a question.” In their own minds, intent carries most of the moral weight. If they did not mean harm, then the reaction seems excessive. But leadership does not work that way. Impact matters because power magnifies everything. A passing comment from a founder can ruin a weekend. A skeptical look from a senior executive can silence a room. A blunt critique can stick in someone’s head for months. High IQ leaders often underestimate this because they evaluate themselves from the inside while everyone else experiences them from the outside. That gap sits at the center of many 360 feedback problems. The Identity Trap There is another layer here. Some smart leaders have been rewarded for being exceptional for so long that they quietly build their identity around being the smartest person in the room. They may not say it out loud. They may even dislike arrogance in others. But inside, being quick, insightful, and right has become central to their sense of worth. Once that happens, other people’s competence can feel threatening. Feedback becomes harder to absorb. Collaboration becomes more performative than real. The leader listens selectively, especially when they believe the other person is less capable. They become invested in remaining the mental center of gravity. That is a dangerous place to lead from. It turns intelligence into status defense. It makes humility feel like loss. It makes genuine curiosity harder. And it makes the leader lonelier than they realize, because very few people feel close to someone who always has to occupy the top intellectual position. The Shift That Matters The good news is that these problems are workable. In fact, smart leaders often improve quickly once they see the pattern clearly. Their intelligence then becomes an ally rather than a shield. But improvement requires a shift in model. Leadership is not just about being right. It is about creating enough trust, clarity, and psychological safety that the best thinking of the group can emerge. Your job is not merely to contribute your intelligence. It is to increase the total intelligence of the system. That means treating emotions as information rather than interference. It means becoming curious about your own interpersonal signature. What happens to people in your presence when you are under pressure. Do they get more open or more cautious. More honest or more political. More energized or more tense. Those are not soft questions. They are the real scorecard of leadership impact. It also means slowing down your certainty just enough to make room for other minds. Ask one more question before concluding. Stay with the other person’s frame a little longer. Notice when you are moving to solution because you are uncomfortable with uncertainty or emotion. Let people finish. Reflect before rebutting. And it means understanding that warmth and strength are not opposites. Many analytical leaders fear that becoming more emotionally intelligent will make them softer or less respected. The opposite is usually true. Leaders become more effective when people experience them as both rigorous and fair, both clear and human, both demanding and safe enough to tell the truth to. Practical Experiments A few simple practices can help. In your next one on one, spend more time understanding than advising. In your next disagreement, summarize the other person’s view in a way they agree is accurate before stating your own. In your next leadership meeting, track how often you interrupt, redirect, or signal impatience. After a difficult conversation, ask yourself not only whether your point was valid, but what emotional residue you likely left behind. Ask two trusted people what it feels like to disagree with you, and listen without defending. Final Thought Human beings are not engineering problems. They are not solved by superior reasoning alone. They need respect, steadiness, dignity, trust, and emotional attunement. That is why so many smart leaders struggle. Not because they are too intelligent, but because they have leaned on the wrong part of themselves for too long. At a certain point in leadership, your mind stops being the main differentiator. Plenty of people are smart. What becomes rarer is the ability to combine intelligence with self awareness, candor with sensitivity, high standards with trust, and authority with emotional maturity. That is when a smart leader becomes someone people actually want to follow.




