Introduction
Conflict between teams seems inevitable. But what if it wasn’t something to fear or avoid—but a signal that untapped potential is waiting to be unlocked?
In my work with teams facing tension, misalignment, or recurring friction, I’ve seen a consistent pattern: when we shift the focus from fixing what’s “wrong” to understanding what’s strong, everything begins to change.
Your weaknesses will never develop, while your strengths will develop infinitely. Donald Clifton
That’s the power of strengths-based coaching. It doesn’t eliminate conflict—it reframes it. It helps team members recognize how their natural talents, communication styles, and motivations may differ, and how those differences can actually fuel better collaboration, not derail it.
In this article, I’ll share data that highlights just how impactful strengths coaching can be for teams in conflict—including measurable improvements in trust, decision making, and collaboration.
In great Teams, conflict becomes productive. Peter Senge
If you’ve ever led or worked on a team where tension felt like a wall you couldn’t move past, this may offer a new lens—and a path forward.
Background: When Conflict Stalls Progress
Two cross-functional teams—both highly skilled and committed—were tasked with delivering a key project. On paper, they had everything they needed: clear deliverables, strong leadership, and the resources to succeed.
But in practice, progress ground to a halt.
What started as misaligned expectations quickly escalated into open frustration. Communication between the teams broke down. Meetings became tense, deadlines slipped, and collaboration gave way to finger-pointing. With each delay, the organization faced increasing pressure—from both internal stakeholders and external clients.
The cost wasn’t just emotional—it was measurable. The project ran behind schedule, triggering contractual performance penalties and jeopardizing future business opportunities. Leadership knew something had to change, but traditional interventions—status updates, performance reviews, and tighter oversight—only scratched the surface.
That’s when the decision was made to introduce strengths-based coaching. Not as a last-ditch effort, but as a strategic shift in how the teams understood themselves—and each other.
Strengths Based Team Coaching Approach: Rebuilding Trust
To address the growing conflict and re-align both teams, a targeted strengths-based coaching approach was begun. We began with the need for psychological safety, then moved to what makes great teams. The focus was on the leveraging of the unique strengths of each time to rebuild collaboration from the inside out. The initial phase of the process culminated in the co-creation of a unified team charter to sustain alignment and accountability.
1. Building Psychological Safety
Before resolving conflict, the teams needed a foundation of trust and openness. Team workshops began with intentional work on psychological safety, allowing individuals to express concerns, frustrations, and assumptions in a safe, structured space.
Psychological safety is not about being nice. It is about giving candid feedback, openly admitting mistakes, and learning from each other. Dr Amy Edmondson
Through facilitated dialogue, team members were encouraged to listen with curiosity rather than judgment—paving the way for more honest interactions. This step aligned with Lencioni’s foundational principle: the absence of trust is the root of team dysfunction.
2. Applying the Lencioni Framework to Diagnose and Address Dysfunction
Using Lencioni’s model, the teams explored how their behaviors mapped to the five key dysfunctions:
- Absence of Trust
- Fear of Conflict
- Lack of Commitment
- Avoidance of Accountability
- Inattention to Results
With coaching support, each dysfunction was unpacked in practical, team-specific terms. This helped surface systemic issues, such as avoidance of difficult conversations, siloed decision-making, and unclear ownership—allowing the teams to name what wasn’t working without assigning blame.
Teamwork is not a virtue. It is a choice and a strategic one. Patrick Lencioni
3. Identifying and Leveraging Individual & Team Strengths
Once the groundwork of trust was laid, each team member used their strengths report to identify ways they can naturally contribute to joint team success. Team-level coaching revealed how strengths that initially caused tension (e.g., high achievers clashing with deep thinkers) can be reinterpreted as complementary. The shift is powerful: from viewing others as obstacles to seeing them as potential allies with different, but valuable, ways of working.
4. Co-Creating a Joint Team Charter
With improved self-awareness and mutual understanding, both teams participated in a collaborative process to design a Team Charter—a clear, shared agreement outlining how they would work together going forward. The charter included:
- Agreed-upon communication norms
- Decision-making protocols
- Conflict resolution guidelines
- Shared goals and key deliverables
- Mechanisms for accountability and recognition
This charter is a touchstone for team culture and cohesion. More importantly, it was a product of co-ownership—reflecting input from both teams and rooted in their shared values and strengths.
Impact: Results to Date
Whilst the process is ongoing, the initial results show a considerable shift in team dynamics in terms of improvements in key areas essential for high performance and project delivery.
📈 Openness Increased by 14%
Psychological safety, trust, and vulnerability are central to the coaching process. As a result, team members reported a 14% improvement in openness, marked by more honest conversations, reduced defensiveness, and a greater willingness to share challenges and ideas without fear of judgment.
🤝 Collaboration Towards Agreed Goals Improved by 29%
Once individual strengths were understood and aligned with team objectives, collaboration significantly improved. The teams experienced a 29% increase in collaboration toward shared goals, driven by clearer expectations, better alignment, and increased respect for one another’s working styles.
✅ Clarity in Decision-Making Rose by 14%
Confusion around roles and authority had previously stalled progress. Through the co-created team charter and clarified team norms, the teams saw a 14% improvement in decision-making clarity. Members were more confident about who was accountable for what, leading to faster, more decisive action.
Remaining Challenges: Accountability and Consistency
While the strengths-based coaching approach led to meaningful progress—particularly in openness (+14%), collaboration toward shared goals (+29%), and clarity of decision-making (+14%)—some challenges remain.
Two persistent issues continue to surface in cross-team collaboration:
- Inconsistent follow-through on commitments, and
- Reluctance to hold peers accountable for underperformance or missed expectations.
These challenges are not uncommon in teams moving from conflict toward cohesion. When psychological safety and openness increase, it’s often a first—and necessary—step. But sustaining high performance requires more than trust; it demands consistent execution and a culture of mutual accountability.
A sense of ownership is the most powerful weapon a team or organisation can have. Pat Summitt
This reflects a key insight from Lencioni’s model: even teams with trust and clarity can falter if accountability is avoided. Without a shared commitment to standards and outcomes, misalignment and performance gaps may quietly return—undermining earlier progress.
Looking Ahead: Embedding Accountability Through Strengths
The next phase of the coaching process will focus on:
- Helping team members understand how their strengths impact their approach to accountability—including potential blind spots (e.g., avoiding conflict, over-accommodating, or assuming others will follow through).
- Developing team agreements around what consistency looks like, and how individuals will support—not just expect—accountability from peers.
- Practicing real-time feedback and follow-up using strengths-based language, so accountability becomes a natural, respectful, and expected part of collaboration.
By framing accountability as a shared strength—not a threat—we aim to help the teams complete the shift from trust and collaboration to sustained performance and ownership.
Conclusion: From Conflict to Cohesion—And Beyond
The strengths-based coaching process created a powerful shift for two teams once stalled by conflict. Through building psychological safety, uncovering and applying individual and collective strengths, and co-creating a shared team charter, the teams moved toward greater alignment and performance—with measurable results.
These outcomes reflect a core truth I’ve seen repeatedly in my coaching work: what often appears as dysfunction is actually misaligned potential. When we help people see their differences as assets, and offer structured space to reconnect with purpose, remarkable transformation can occur.
What often appears as dysfunction is actually misaligned potential. Yendor Felgate
That said, progress is not the finish line. While the foundations of trust and collaboration are now in place, consistency and accountability remain critical areas for growth. Sustained performance requires more than alignment—it calls for courageous ownership, clear follow-through, and a shared commitment to excellence.
As a coach, I believe the real work lies not just in uncovering what makes people strong, but in helping teams build the structures, habits, and relationships that allow those strengths to thrive—especially under pressure.
“Strengths aren’t just what we’re good at—they’re how we show up when things get hard. Coaching brings those strengths to the surface and helps teams turn friction into forward motion.”
Conflict was the entry point. Strengths created momentum. Accountability will build resilience—and results.
