Adapt Consulting Company

When Tensions Flare in Teams, What’s Really Going On?

Most workplace conflict isn’t about bad people.
It’s about conflicting values, unspoken assumptions, and unconscious projections.

Let’s unpack that.

Shadow & Projection (Jungian Psychology)

Carl Jung taught us that everyone has a shadow—aspects of ourselves we hide, deny, or disown. These qualities often get projected onto others.

Someone who values order might see spontaneity as “chaos.”
Someone who values empathy might see directness as “aggression.”

What we react to in others is often a mirror of our own inner tension.

This dynamic explains why even small workplace interactions—an email tone, a comment in a meeting—can spark disproportionate emotional responses. The “problem” isn’t just the behaviour. It’s what it represents.

️ Conflict Styles: TKI and What We Avoid

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument (TKI) outlines five conflict-handling modes:

Competing – assertive, uncooperative
Collaborating – assertive, cooperative
Compromising – moderate on both
Avoiding – unassertive, uncooperative
Accommodating – unassertive, cooperative

In many organizations, people default to avoiding or accommodating—often to maintain “harmony.” But harmony without honesty breeds resentment, passive aggression, and decision-making paralysis.

Conflict styles aren’t “good” or “bad”—but a mismatch can damage trust.

A collaborator might feel unsupported by an avoider.
A competitor may intimidate a harmoniser.
A compromiser might frustrate everyone by splitting the difference too quickly.

Teams that never surface these styles default into patterns—often unconsciously.

Spiral Dynamics: What Culture Are We In?

Let’s zoom out.

Spiral Dynamics offers a lens on organizational culture by identifying value systems or “memes” that shape behaviour.

Consider these:
Red: Power-driven. Authority rules. “My way or the highway.”
Blue: Rules-driven. Order, loyalty, hierarchy. “Do it the right way.”
Orange: Results-driven. Innovation, performance, KPIs. “What gets measured gets done.”
Green: People-driven. Consensus, inclusion, shared values. “Everyone has a voice.”

Most tension arises when values are misaligned or under strain.

Example:

A Green leader (consensus, care) may see a Red team member as “bullying.”
An Orange culture (targets and outcomes) may see a Blue colleague as “slow” or “bureaucratic.”

If you’ve ever heard phrases like:
> “They’re lovely, but they never deliver.”
> “He gets things done, but no one wants to work with him.”

…you’re seeing culture clash in action.

“Country Club” Cultures vs. Accountability

There’s a risk in both directions.

When friendship and belonging are prioritized over feedback and performance, teams become “country clubs”: pleasant on the surface, but full of unspoken tensions and underperformance.
When output and efficiency trump all else, teams become “machine-like”: fast-moving but soulless, where burnout and high turnover are common.

The healthiest teams integrate both:
High challenge + high support
Outcomes and empathy
Feedback with care

So What Can We Do?

1. Reflect before reacting.
Ask: “What part of this conflict reflects something in me?”

2. Name the style, not the person.
“I wonder if we’re seeing this differently because I tend to collaborate, and you prefer to avoid conflict.”

3. Spot the cultural centre of gravity.
Are we operating in Red, Blue, Orange, or Green? What’s valued here—and what’s shadowed?

4. Hold tensions, don’t dissolve them too fast.
Disagreement isn’t failure—it’s friction that can lead to growth, if we stay with it long enough.

A final thought: Teams thrive not because they avoid conflict, but because they navigate it consciously.

When we understand the shadow, the projections, the values beneath our choices, and the cultures we swim in—we stop fighting each other and start working with each other.

\#TeamDynamics #Leadership #OrganizationalCulture #EmotionalIntelligence #ShadowWork #ConflictManagement #TKI #SpiralDynamics #PsychologicalSafety #ValuesBasedLeadership

The Hidden Costs of Conflict Avoidance: A Radical Candor Perspective

In today’s complex workplaces, honest, compassionate feedback is essential—not only for performance but for trust, growth, and engagement. Yet in many organizations, discomfort with conflict leads to cultures that prioritize harmony over honesty, with serious hidden costs.

What Is Radical Candor?

Kim Scott’s Radical Candor offers a powerful framework for leadership. It sits at the intersection of two core behaviours:

Care Personally – show empathy, build trust, and value people as humans.
Challenge Directly – speak honestly, especially when it’s hard.

When both are present, teams flourish. But when “Care Personally” is present without challenge, leaders slip into Ruinous Empathy—where kindness becomes avoidance, and accountability evaporates.

How Conflict Avoidance Creates Dysfunction

In conflict-averse teams, managers may hesitate to give direct feedback, leaving issues unspoken. Instead, they rely on formal processes and paperwork: goal-setting documents, performance reviews, development plans, and other official artefacts that often say more about control than clarity.

This leads to:
Unclear expectations, masked by excessive documentation.
Decisions delayed for fear of offending or being wrong.
Burnout among strong performers carrying hidden workloads.
Mistrust from those who sense unspoken judgments behind polite words.

The Artefacts of Power

Documents like development plans and feedback logs often become subtle tools of control. They are signed, approved, and stored—ostensibly to support growth—but may reflect a one-sided dynamic where one person sets the terms and the other complies.

Examples of imbalance include:
One person writing goals, the other simply signing them.
Feedback shared through formal reviews rather than in conversation.
Personal development becoming performative rather than meaningful.

These are not neutral acts—they are demonstrations of power, often dressed in the language of support.

The Risk of Ruinous Empathy

Avoiding difficult conversations under the guise of being “supportive” doesn’t protect people—it isolates them. Instead of openness, there’s paperwork. Instead of clarity, there’s a quiet performance of care. This is Ruinous Empathy in action: failure to challenge directly, while pretending to care.

And it has a cost:
People don’t grow.
Problems don’t get solved.
Trust erodes.

Moving from Performative Process to Courageous Conversation

If organizations want real growth and accountability, they must:
1. Use frameworks as springboards, not cages – Let personal goals and reviews be part of an ongoing dialogue, not just a tick-box exercise.
2. Train leaders to speak early and often – Equip managers to give feedback as a conversation, not a document.
3. Invite employee voice – Let people shape their goals, development, and reflections.
4. Model vulnerability from the top – Senior leaders must show that feedback is safe and shared, not selective and strategic.

Final Thought

Kindness without clarity is not care—it’s avoidance. And avoidance, no matter how well-intentioned, breeds dysfunction.

The tools of management—goal plans, development frameworks, review cycles—are only helpful when used in service of dialogue, not in place of it. True Radical Candor means balancing honesty with empathy. It means recognizing where power sits, and how to share it wisely.

When feedback becomes a partnership, not a performance, everyone grows.

Do Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) Work?

The answer depends significantly on context, intent, and execution. Research suggests that while PIPs can be an effective tool for performance improvement, they are often misused or misunderstood—frequently becoming a mechanism for managing someone out rather than supporting development.

1. When PIPs Are Effective

Development-Focused PIPs Can Improve Performance

When designed and implemented with a developmental intent, PIPs can:

Clarify expectations for performance and behavior.
Provide structured support such as training, mentoring, or coaching.
Enable performance recovery, especially when the issues stem from communication gaps, unclear expectations, or insufficient feedback.

2. When PIPs Are Ineffective (or Harmful)

️ Common Failings of PIPs:

Used as a precursor to dismissal: Many PIPs are initiated not to improve performance but to build a legal paper trail for termination.
Lack of psychological safety: Employees often perceive a PIP as a betrayal or an attack, especially if it’s delivered abruptly or without clear justification.
Poor design: Vague goals, arbitrary timelines, and lack of managerial support can doom a PIP from the outset.

Supporting Research:

In a survey of HR professionals less than 20% believed PIPs improved employee performance, while 77% said they were primarily used to document performance issues for termination.
A Leadership study found that 87% of employees on a PIP ultimately left the organization, either through resignation or termination. The same study also showed that PIPs often lowered engagement and increased mistrust among remaining team members
Gartner reported that traditional performance management systems—especially punitive ones—decrease employee engagement by up to 20%, particularly when they are perceived as top-down or one-sided.

3. Psychological and Cultural Dynamics

Locus of Control and Trust:

Employees’ reactions to PIPs often depend on how much control they feel over the situation. If the plan is collaborative and includes check-ins, feedback loops, and resource support, trust can be maintained or even strengthened. According to Dr. Teresa Amabile (Harvard), “progress is the most powerful motivator.” Small wins and daily feedback fuel engagement far more effectively than threat-based systems

4. Summary Table: Developmental vs Punitive PIPs

Table

5. Final Considerations

When PIPs should be used:

When expectations were previously unclear or shifting.
When the performance issue is skills-based or circumstantial, not behavioral or cultural.
When the organization is willing to invest in support, feedback, and coaching.

When PIPs shouldn’t be used:

As a fast-track to dismissal or “going through the motions” for HR/legal reasons.
When trust is already broken, and the employee is unlikely to feel safe engaging with the process.
Without a clear pathway to success (i.e., “what good looks like” and how to get there).

Recommendations for Improving PIPs

Rename them: “Performance Development Plans” (PDPs) or “Growth Plans” can reduce fear and stigma.
Focus on mutual expectations, not one-sided critique.
Combine with coaching, peer support, or mentoring.
Include SMART goals, regular reviews, and a success roadmap.
Address not just “what isn’t working,” but “how to get back on track.”

“Mapping the Invisible” – Lessons from Process Interviews During Change

When organizations go through change—whether restructuring, service transfer, or just trying to get a clearer grip on what their teams actually do—one task always surfaces: process mapping or role mapping.

But while the goal may be simple (“show me who does what”), the reality can get tangled very quickly. Here’s what I’ve learned from doing this in practice, and what might help others avoid the common pitfalls.

1. Be Clear on the Purpose—For Everyone

One of the biggest early risks is misalignment of intent. If one manager wants a high-level overview (“just the essentials”) and another expects forensic-level documentation (“I want every step”), that ambiguity will show up in your interviews—and cause frustration.

Top Tip: Agree a shared purpose and level of detail before you begin. If needed, produce a core summary with detailed appendices for those who want to dig deeper.

2. You’re Not the Expert—You’re the Interpreter

When you’re tasked with documenting roles or processes you don’t perform yourself, you’re entirely dependent on the people doing the work. That means clarity, honesty, and completeness from them are essential—but not always guaranteed.

People may skip steps they think are “obvious” or unintentionally gloss over pain points. This is where structured interviews are essential.

Top Tip: Always include a review loop. Have the person or their line manager validate what you’ve written. It builds trust and improves accuracy.

3. Structure the Conversation to Reduce Ambiguity

A good structure does three things:

It ensures consistency between interviews
It keeps the conversation focused and efficient
It gives participants confidence—they know what to expect

But structure shouldn’t mean rigidity. Ask broad questions like: “What do you do that no one else sees?” or “If someone else did your job tomorrow, what would they need to know?”

Top Tip: Share your questions in advance to reduce anxiety and allow people to prepare.

4. Remember the Emotional Context

Role mapping isn’t neutral. For some, it feels like being scrutinized. For others, it’s a cue that change (or redundancy) is coming. Approach interviews with empathy. Reinforce that the goal is clarity and continuity, not judgment.

Top Tip: Position the exercise as a celebration of what works, not a forensic inquest.

5. It’s Not Just “What” People Do—It’s “Why” and “When”

Good process mapping includes not only tasks, but also triggers, handover points, and dependencies. You want to know not just what’s done, but what starts it, who else is involved, and what happens if that person isn’t there.

Top Tip: Use prompts like “what do you do when X happens?” or “what slows this down?”

Summary: Top Tips for Process & Role Mapping

1. Clarify intent and scope upfront
2. Use structured questions, but leave room for nuance
3. Validate everything with the people doing the work
4. Map roles and context: triggers, systems, dependencies
5. Be empathetic—change creates uncertainty
6. Distil insights into summaries with optional detail appendices
7. Document who covers the role during absence—often missed
8. Capture not just what works, but what breaks
9. Ask: “If someone took over tomorrow, what would they need?”
10. Don’t do it to people—do it with them

“If You Can’t Rank It, You Can’t Reduce It” – Why Product & Project Prioritization Matters More Than Ever

Many organizations today are faced with the same challenge: doing morewith less.

This isn’t just a question of trimming back on projects or postponing initiatives. It’s a deeper issue — a question of whether we truly understand the value, purpose, and priorityof the products, services, or projects we deliver.

And this challenge affects businesses, charities, and governmentsalike.

Reintroducing the Boston Matrix

Most people in strategy or product management are familiar with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Matrix, also known as the Boston Matrix. It classifies products or services into four categories based on market growthand market share:

Cash Cows: Low growth, high share — your reliable revenue generators. Milk them, but don’t overinvest.
Stars: High growth, high share — your future. Nurture them to secure tomorrow’s success.
Problem Children (Question Marks): High growth, low share — risky bets. Invest carefully or reassess.
Dogs: Low growth, low share — these are often products to divest or deprecate.

While this model is still valuable for portfolio management, it’s often underused in non-commercial sectorslike the public or charitable domains — where instead of profit, we might evaluate social impact, mission alignment, or strategic contribution.

The Real Challenge: Agreeing What Matters

In practice, ranking projects or services sounds simple… until you try it.

I’ve worked with organizations juggling 50+ simultaneous projects, and often the hardest part isn’t execution — it’s deciding what matters most. Because “importance” means different things to different stakeholders:

For some, it’s profitability.
For others, it’s compliance, strategic infrastructure, political alignment, or social good.
And in many cases, it’s a complex blendof multiple criteria.

That’s why the first essential stepis defining your scoring system:
What do you value, and how will you measure it?

Some use simple prioritization models. Others use weighted scoring systems where each criterion (e.g. ROI, risk, stakeholder benefit, urgency) is assigned a percentage weight, and projects or services are scored accordingly.

It’s not always comfortable — but it forces clarity.

Tools That Help Prioritize

Here are a few models that go beyond the Boston Matrix:

MoSCoW Prioritization

Used in agile and project environments to classify:

Must have
Should have
Could have
Won’t have (for now)

Simple, visual, and useful when time or budget constraints hit.

Weighted Scoring Models

Assigns numerical value to multiple criteria (e.g. risk, cost, impact). Helps avoid gut-feel decisions by forcing transparency and logic into prioritization.

> Example: A local government might score a transport initiative as 8/10 for political alignment, 5/10 for environmental impact, 2/10 for affordability — creating a composite score to compare it with healthcare or housing programs.

Eisenhower Matrix

Urgent vs. Important— helps teams sort the truly strategic from the operational noise.
While often used for time management, it can apply to product or policy prioritization.

Kano Model

Especially useful in service design or customer experience:

Basic Needs(expected)
Performance Needs(increase satisfaction linearly)
Exciters/Delighters(unexpected but valued)

This helps avoid overengineering products with features no one values.

Why Prioritization Matters More Than Ever

When resources tighten — and they will — you willbe forced to make trade-offs.

The problem is: if you don’t have a clear, transparent, and agreed prioritization framework, what gets cut may not be the right thing.

Too often, organizations:

Cut the expensivewithout realising it’s also critical
Keep the popularwithout evaluating impact
Drop the difficultwithout seeing the long-term value

Prioritization isn’t just cost-cutting. It’s strategic clarity.

Final Thought: Strategy Is Saying “No” — With Justification

The best program management offices (PMOs) do this rigorously for projects. But too few organizations apply the same discipline to their products or services.

Without this, you’re left vulnerable to:

Political expediency
Short-term thinking
Missed opportunities
Unintended consequences

So whether you’re running a business, charity, or public service — ask yourself:

> “What’s my scoring system for success? And how do I know what not to do?”

I’d love to hear your experiences with prioritization frameworks — what’s worked for you? What models have you found helpful (or unhelpful)?

\#Prioritization #ProjectManagement #ProductStrategy #BostonMatrix #ChangeManagement #Leadership #DecisionMaking #BusinessStrategy #MoSCoW #KanoModel #EisenhowerMatrix

Aligning Mission, Behaviours, Values, and Process for Project Success

One of the most effective frameworks I’ve come across for understanding organisational alignment is Steven Bartlett’s Mission → Behaviours → Values → Process model. It’s deceptively simple, but incredibly powerful when applied to project environments where clarity, coordination, and performance are non-negotiable.

In this blog, we’ll explore how each element interconnects and what good looks like in a project-focused organisation.

Mission: Define What You’re Trying to Achieve

Mission is the guiding star. For projects, it’s rarely just about ticking boxes. A clear mission might be:

Deliver on time, on budget, and to specification
Mitigate risks and communicate proactively
Achieve tangible outcomes that serve organisational goals

A strong mission gives direction. It sets the ‘why’ behind every decision and serves as a touchstone when priorities get fuzzy or stakeholders pull in different directions.

In a well-aligned organisation, you’ll see:

Clear project charters or briefs
Shared understanding of success criteria
Visible leadership commitment to the project’s purpose

Behaviours: Act in Service of the Mission

If your mission is crystal clear, your behaviours must support it. Want low-risk and high-communication delivery? Then you need people who:

Communicate early, often, and with clarity
Are transparent about issues or slippage
Invite challenge to improve solutions
Prioritise documentation and knowledge sharing
Coordinate and collaborate across silos

Behavioural alignment means avoiding the usual pitfalls: politicking, withholding information, or prioritising personal agendas over shared goals.

In practice, this looks like:

Active listening in meetings
Constructive challenge without fear
Documented decisions, not verbal ‘agreements’
People taking ownership, not passing the buck

Values: The Beliefs That Drive Behaviour

Behind every behaviour is a value. If someone consistently challenges scope creep or raises risks early, they probably value integrity and accountability. If someone shares credit and supports colleagues, they likely value collaboration and shared success.

In project settings, the most valuable values include:

Selflessness – putting the project above personal ego
Transparency – sharing information for the greater good
Delivery mindset – committed to outcomes, not optics
Collaboration – seeking alignment over dominance
Courage – being willing to ask hard questions and confront ambiguity

You’ll see values lived out when:

Teams call out misalignment respectfully
People raise concerns because they care
Recognition is based on contribution, not politics
Conversations are solution-oriented, not blame-focused

Process: The Engine That Makes It All Work

Finally, process is the scaffolding. If your values and behaviours are the culture, your processes are the practical systems that make them stick. Without the right forums, tools, and rituals, good intentions fall apart.

The right processes in project-focused organisations include:

Decision forums with clear roles (RACI or RAPID)
Regular progress reviews and retrospectives
Transparent reporting tools and dashboards
Issue and risk logs accessible to all
Documented scopes, requirements, and change control

Process isn’t bureaucracy. It’s the machinery that ensures behaviours are consistent and scalable—and that delivery stays aligned to mission.

Strong processes look like:

Everyone knowing where to find the latest update
Issues being logged and acted on, not whispered about
Meetings that make decisions, not just status-checks
Feedback loops that drive continuous improvement

Final Thought: Culture is the Outcome of Alignment

When Mission, Behaviours, Values, and Process align, you create a culture of delivery. A culture where people know why they’re here, how to behave, what matters, and how to get things done.

When they’re misaligned, projects stall, trust breaks down, and decision-making becomes reactive instead of intentional.

So, next time a project is drifting or a team is struggling, don’t just ask *what’s going wrong*. Ask:

Are we clear on our mission?
Are our behaviours consistent with that mission?
Do our values drive those behaviours?
Do our processes support or sabotage them?

Fixing alignment here isn’t a silver bullet—but it’s often the lever that unlocks sustained performance.

Stewardship vs. Prospecting: What American Football Can Teach Us About Charity Funding Models

When building teams—whether boards, delivery teams, or operational units—it’s helpful to consider what kind of team you need, not just what skills they offer.

That got me thinking about American football.

In American football, different squads take to the field for different situations: the defensive team protects, reacts, and holds ground; the offensive team takes initiative, advances, and scores. You can draw a useful analogy with organizational teams—and especially with charities.

️ Defensive Teams: The Custodians

Charities that receive substantial funding from government or large benefactors often adopt a defensive stance. Their priority is stewardship—ensuring funds are spent cautiously, predictably, and in line with predefined conditions. Risk aversion, compliance, and prudent governance dominate their culture.

These organizations may be constrained by funding agreements, service-level contracts, or political scrutiny. The emphasis is on control and continuity, not innovation or growth.

Offensive Teams: The Prospectors

Contrast this with charities whose very survival depends on proactive fundraising: donations, sponsorships, events, and philanthropy. These are more entrepreneurial organizations. They invest in marketing, partnerships, donor engagement, and visibility—not because they want to—but because they must.

This doesn’t mean they lack financial discipline. On the contrary, good stewardship is essential to keep donors’ trust. But their culture is shaped by innovation, storytelling, and responsiveness, not bureaucracy.

Transitioning Between Models

Where it gets interesting is when a charity transitions from one model to another—often out of necessity.

What if government funding shrinks or becomes tied to increasingly complex conditions?
What if donor fatigue or economic downturns threaten event-based income?
What if a major benefactor becomes a minority stakeholder?

Jersey Hospice Care
Jersey Hospice Care is an excellent example of a charity that operates entirely on donations. That independence allows them to focus on patient-centred care without the red tape often tied to government grants. However, it requires constant investment in public engagement and trust-building.

Jersey Cheshire Home
Similarly, Jersey Cheshire Home thrives through philanthropic support rather than reliance on government funding. That freedom comes with a burden: the need for constant visibility, trust, and long-term donor engagement. But I suspect they’ll tell you—it’s worth it to preserve autonomy and purpose.

If you’re reading this, please donate to them because they absolutely need your funds for their very existence.

In both cases, financial independence empowers the organization. But I suspect it also demands a fundamentally different operating model, team structure, and culture.

Stakeholder Implications

A shift in funding affects power dynamics. When one funder provides 100% of your income, they often shape your mission, reporting, and delivery. But as you diversify funding or build your own income streams:

That funder’s voice may carry less weight.
Relationships must shift from dependency to partnership.
You may gain freedom—but also greater accountability to more stakeholders.

Some funders welcome this, enjoying a less burdensome relationship. Others may resent the loss of influence.

Final Thoughts

Charities—like sports teams—must constantly adapt to their context. Whether playing defensively or offensively, success depends on being intentional about your funding model, your culture, and your stakeholder relationships.

So ask yourself:
What kind of team do we need now?
What kind of funding do we rely on?
What would it take to change that model?

The answers may shape everything from your recruitment strategy to your next board meeting.

Further Reading

NCVO UK Civil Society Almanac: Insight into how UK charities are funded
NPC’s Funding Models Review: Compares earned income, donations, and grant-based models
Bridgespan’s “Ten Nonprofit Funding Models”: Breaks down common strategies with real examples

What funding model does your charity follow—and what would you change if you could? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Let’s start a conversation in the comments.

Would you like this reformatted as a downloadable PDF or a carousel version for social media?

Yellow Cards, Boardrooms, and Identity: What Football Teaches Us About Leading Change

I’ve always found football a useful metaphor for leadership and change. Not just because of tactics or team selection, but because of how teams choose to play — and what that says about their identity.

Take teams that are happy to pick up yellow cards. Some managers — and their boards — are comfortable with what’s called “professional fouls.” They play on the edge, accept controlled aggression, and see disruption as part of the strategy. Others expect clean, precise, elegant football — zero cards, maximum finesse. Same goal. Very different way of getting there.

I was reminded of this recently during a session with the South African Springboks’ coaching staff. Their philosophy? Controlled aggression — tough, disciplined, right up to the limit of what’s allowed, but no further. It wasn’t just about what they did on the pitch, but how they did it — a conscious cultural choice rooted in identity.

And that’s the crux of effective leadership in projects and organizations.

It’s Not Just What You Do, It’s How You Do It

In any team — whether in sport, business, or government — success depends on two things:

1. What you’re trying to achieve (the tactics, targets, and deliverables)
2. How you’re choosing to achieve it (the tone, culture, and behaviours)

Both matter. You can have world-class plans and still fail if your style alienates your stakeholders. Or you can have great team spirit but no shared sense of direction. Real leadership is about managing both the what and the how — up, down, and across the organization.

Managing Multiple Audiences: Board, Team, and Supporters

The manager of a football club has to do more than lead a team. They must:

Keep the board happy (results, reputation, ROI)
Motivate the team (cohesion, belief, performance)
Satisfy the supporters (identity, emotion, values)

That’s three sets of expectations — and three versions of success. The same is true for project and business leaders. Managing upwards to sponsors and shareholders, managing downwards to delivery teams, and managing outwards to customers, media, or regulators.

To succeed, you can’t wear three masks. You need alignment. If you’re bold and aggressive with media and marketing but cautious and risk-averse in delivery, you’ll lose credibility. If your board believes in steady progress but your teams are incentivized to “move fast and break things,” you’ll breed friction and burnout.

Identity is More Than Culture

Culture is often defined as “how we do things around here.” But I’d argue that what we’re really talking about is identity — who we are and how we are seen.

Are we disruptors or diplomats?
Are we elegant tacticians or brutal enforcers?
Are we a team that plays to the rules or stretches them?

Understanding this matters. Because two organizations can attempt the same transformation and use the same tools — but deliver it very differently based on identity and values. There is no universal playbook — just the right one for your team.

Takeaways for Leaders

1. Get consensus not just on the what but also the how
2. Align internal delivery and external messaging — identity matters
3. Manage across stakeholder levels — board, team, and “supporters”
4. Choose your cultural style intentionally — be honest about your playing style
5. Know your boundaries — every yellow card is a strategic choice

Final Thought

Great leadership, like great football, isn’t just about possession or passing accuracy — it’s about having a clear identity, managing multiple expectations, and playing your chosen game with clarity and conviction.

So next time you plan a project or lead a change initiative, ask yourself:

Are we the kind of team that accepts yellow cards?

And if so — are we all agreed on why?

Project Management Through the Lens of Spiral Dynamics

Matching Methods to Mindsets

Project management is often presented as a set of technical processes — planning, tracking, and delivery. But anyone who’s worked in the field knows that success hinges more on people than process. Tools are only as effective as the mindset of the team and the cultural context in which they’re used.

This is where Spiral Dynamics offers a powerful framework. By understanding the value systems that underpin organizational behavior, we can tailor project management styles to better match the developmental stage of the group or organization.

Let’s explore how each stage on the spiral corresponds to different project management needs and techniques.

Beige – SurvivalSense

Focus: Survival, instincts, immediate needs
PM Style: Nonexistent or emergent

Project work doesn’t exist formally here; tasks are reactive and ad hoc
No planning, no delegation — only direct responses to immediate threats
Relevance: Disaster relief, crisis zones, or survivalist settings
Implication: Coordination is minimal. Priority is basic resource provision and safety.

Red – PowerGods

Focus: Power, dominance, impulsive leadership
PM Style: Authoritarian and reactive

Command-and-control; decisions based on personal authority
Little documentation, no stakeholder engagement, risk is ignored
Timelines shift with mood or politics
Implication: PM must manage egos, focus on visible wins, and build coalitions around strong personalities.

Blue – TruthForce

Focus: Order, structure, hierarchy, obedience to rules
PM Style: Waterfall methodology

Follows rigid project lifecycles (PRINCE2, PMBOK)
High emphasis on documentation, approvals, governance
Stakeholders respect chain of command and fixed scope
Implication: Ideal for engineering, government, and large-scale infrastructure projects where predictability matters.

Orange – StriveDrive

Focus: Achievement, efficiency, results, success
PM Style: Agile-lean hybrids and data-driven models

Embraces KPIs, ROI, dashboards, and optimization
Stakeholders are competitive, success-focused, and data-oriented
PMs use OKRs, Agile sprints, Lean Six Sigma, and stage gates
Implication: Best for high-performance business environments; highlight benefits, metrics, and autonomy.

Green – HumanBond

Focus: Harmony, collaboration, consensus, inclusion
PM Style: Participatory and co-creative

Emphasis on stakeholder engagement, facilitation, and dialogue
Co-production models, user-centered design, Design Thinking
Planning may be emergent and iterative, with collective decision-making
Implication: PMs act as facilitators or coaches. Progress measured in relationships and impact, not just outputs.

Yellow – FlexFlow

Focus: Systems thinking, adaptability, integration
PM Style: Adaptive and complex

Embraces complexity science, emergence, and change resilience
Combines Agile, Lean, PMO practices based on context
Recognizes different stakeholder realities and tailors approach accordingly
Implication: Requires highly experienced PMs able to hold paradox and balance competing truths; great for transformation.

Turquoise – GlobalView

Focus: Holism, sustainability, planetary systems
PM Style: Regenerative and evolutionary

Project design aligns with purpose, ecology, and global systems
Measures include social impact, environmental stewardship, and systemic change
Encourages deep listening, intuition, and sensemaking
Implication: PM becomes a steward of purpose, operating with long-term vision and compassion.

Why This Matters

Matching project methods to values isn’t “soft.” It’s strategic. A rigid Gantt chart in a Green culture feels oppressive; Agile standups in a Blue hierarchy feel chaotic. Recognizing these patterns avoids friction and fosters alignment.

What You Can Do

Diagnose the dominant cultural vMEME in your team or organization
Tailor your PM approach to match that stage
Facilitate cultural growth through feedback loops and reflection
Blend methods for mixed-vMEME organizations

Final Thought

Project management is as much about meaning-making as it is about task-making. If we want to lead projects that truly succeed — not just on time and budget, but in real-world impact — we must tune into the deeper layers of organizational consciousness.

“Meet people where they are, not where you wish they were.” — Don Beck

“Check the Soil Before You Plant”: Cultural Readiness in Project Management

Project management, in theory, is a disciplined, structured activity: it demands a business case, a project initiation document, a resource plan, risk logs, and change control. Many junior and mid-level project managers learn these tools diligently and try to implement them in good faith — only to encounter a harsh reality: their organization isn’t culturally ready.

Instead of collaboration, they face resistance.
Instead of clear governance, they find ambiguity.
Instead of being thanked for bringing structure, they are accused of “adding bureaucracy.”

This disconnect isn’t a failure of method — it’s a mismatch of culture.

️ The Culture Clash: Project Tools vs. Organizational DNA

Project management is often framed as a neutral skillset — but it is deeply cultural. Structured PM relies on values like:

Transparency (sharing risks and progress)
Accountability (committing to timelines and deliverables)
Prioritization (choosing what not to do)
Planning and documentation (slowing down to speed up)

Yet some organizations thrive on ambiguity. They reward heroics over systems. They elevate informal networks and status over written priorities. In such organizations, initiatives are frequently driven by personality, pet projects, and politics rather than logic, evidence, or strategy.

As Cameron & Quinn’s Competing Values Framework suggests, cultures vary:

Clan cultures value relationships and consensus.
Adhocracies value innovation and agility.
Market cultures value competition and results.
Hierarchies value control and order.

Each of these types responds differently to project management. A hierarchical culture may love Gantt charts and RACI matrices. An adhocracy may find them stifling.

When Project Management Fails Not Because of Projects, But Because of Culture

Research supports this. The Standish Group CHAOS Report consistently finds that “lack of user involvement,” “unclear objectives,” and “poor executive support” are leading causes of project failure — all cultural issues rather than technical ones.

In one case I worked on (disguised for confidentiality), a public-sector digital transformation project failed to get off the ground, not because the business case or tech stack was flawed, but because no senior sponsor would commit in writing to the benefits. Everyone liked the idea in theory, but culturally, “writing it down” was seen as an exposure to risk rather than a route to alignment.

The result? A burned-out PM, demotivated team, and years of stalled progress.

Project Maturity Models: A Diagnostic Tool, Not a Badge

Before deploying project methodologies, tools like the Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) or Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) can help assess whether the soil is fertile.

Key questions:

Do senior leaders support structured delivery?
Are projects aligned to strategy or personalities?
Is documentation trusted or seen as bureaucracy?
Are lessons learned reviewed and applied?
Are cross-functional teams enabled or siloed?

If the answer to most of these is no, then giving teams “tools and templates” without addressing cultural readiness is like handing someone a spade and expecting a forest.

What to Do Instead

If your organization isn’t culturally ready for formal project methods:

1. Start with Change Readiness: Use models like Kotter’s 8 Steps or ADKAR to build urgency, alignment, and sponsorship.
2. Map the Informal Culture: As per Edgar Schein’s iceberg model, most culture is hidden: habits, values, unspoken norms.
3. Introduce “Lightweight PM”: Adapt your methods to fit. Use Trello instead of MS Project. Conversations instead of charters.
4. Use Pilots, Not Programs: Demonstrate value in microcosm before rolling out broadly.
5. Build Cultural Bridges: Find allies who get both the “formal” and “informal” language of your organization.

Final Thought: Don’t Set People Up to Fail

Giving staff PM training and tools in a culture that actively resists structure is like asking a fish to climb a tree. You are not empowering them — you’re setting them up for frustration, stress, and burnout.

Before you roll out governance frameworks or capability models, understand the cultural terrain. Then tailor your approach — just like a gardener chooses different seeds for different soils.

Otherwise, your well-trained PMs won’t be managing projects.
They’ll be managing dysfunction.

Further Reading

Standish Group (2020). CHAOS Report
Cameron & Quinn (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture
Edgar Schein (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership
Kerzner (2005). Using the Project Management Maturity Model
PMI (2013). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3)