Why Teams Struggle: The Hidden Dynamics Leaders Miss
What Is Driving Team Dynamics
Organizations are complex systems, with hidden dynamics that are often difficult to understand or diagnose. Teams are shaped not only by strategy and structure, but by the human interactions that occur within them. Demographics of members can influence who speaks and who doesn’t. The work-unit climate can dictate what is socially acceptable to say and what is not. Certain people may have a valence for some roles, while others may have a stronger valence for others. When teams struggle, the instinct is often to look at performance, capability, or execution. But more often than not, the root of the issue lies beneath the surface.
Yes, performance is important, but sometimes teams are not actually set up for success. Perhaps there is a history of one person dominating the conversation or decision-making. Or an organizational culture that discourages feedback from people lower in the hierarchy. In many organizations, challenges are not the result of a lack of effort or intent. They are the result of dynamics that are misunderstood, misaligned, or left unexamined. Without a clear understanding of what is actually driving behavior within a team, it becomes difficult to intervene in a meaningful way.
One useful way to make sense of these dynamics is through four key elements: Boundaries, Authority, Roles, and Task, or simply BART (Green & Molenkamp, 2005). The BART framework comes out of group relations work, however, it has particular applications to founders, executives, and other leaders of organizations. It offers a practical way to understand what is happening beneath the surface of team performance. Understanding the unconscious dynamics of a system can give leaders an edge when navigating periods of growth and transition.
Boundaries
Boundaries define who is in and who is out. They shape how teams form, how information flows, and how people relate to one another. When boundaries are unclear or overly permeable, teams may struggle with focus, ownership, and cohesion. When they are too rigid, collaboration and adaptability can suffer. The way boundaries are set and managed has a direct impact on how effectively a team is able to function.
Boundaries are a particularly interesting lever to examine in light of the rise of hybrid and remote work, the rapid growth of the gig economy, and globalization. Now more than ever, workers and leaders are navigating questions related to boundaries. In today’s workplace, boundary confusion is everywhere. For example, some leaders want to pay their talent like contractors but expect loyalty like employees. Or due to social media, the line between personal and professional life becomes blurred when you are connected to your boss or other key decision-makers. Or perhaps a leader becomes too insulated and does not know what is happening in other parts of the organization. Or the lack of boundaries by a particular team member can lead to resentment or a loss of focus. Over time, these small boundary breakdowns accumulate and begin to shape how the system operates.
Authority
Authority refers to the right to make decisions and the way that right is understood within the team. Authority is not just formal. It can be granted from above, from peers, or taken up by individuals themselves. When authority is unclear or contested, decision-making slows down, accountability becomes diffuse, and teams can become stuck. Understanding how authority operates within a group is critical to understanding how work gets done.
In my world, authority and power are omnipresent, and the issues surrounding authority are readily visible. Some leaders exercise their authority in a hard-handed way, being more authoritarian than collaborative. Others create cultures where feedback is not wanted or tolerated, making it difficult to push back against the founder or CEO. Leaders have to be careful not to take over as the primary thinker of the organization and instead allow for other voices to be heard. Often, authority is over-centralized or misused to apply pressure to processes that should be equitable and fair. When this happens, decision-making becomes concentrated, and the organization loses its ability to think collectively. As a result, organizations can inadvertently create a culture of fear where feedback loops break down and decision bottlenecks persist.
Roles
Roles describe how individuals position themselves in relation to the team’s work. Some roles are formally assigned, while others are taken up informally. When roles are unclear, overlapping, or in conflict, tension and inefficiency often follow. Individuals may find themselves navigating competing expectations or stepping into gaps that were never explicitly defined. Over time, this can lead to frustration, disengagement, and reduced effectiveness.
How often have you seen role slide in your work? Called upon to do one thing and then end up doing something completely different. Often, leaders want results and lean on those who are most capable, using their workforce in ways that are inconsistent with their skillset or formal role. While the work may get done, this creates conditions that result in role ambiguity, role devaluation, or role inflation. Role misalignment can lead to confusion, frustration, and a degradation of quality if not managed effectively. I have seen leaders underutilize their talent, and also the opposite, calling on their talent to do more than their role requires, often without acknowledgement or increase in pay. Both patterns signal a misalignment between expectations and structure, which the system eventually absorbs as tension.
Task
Task refers to the primary work the team is meant to accomplish. While this may seem straightforward, it is often interpreted differently across the group. Competing assumptions about priorities, goals, or success criteria can lead to misalignment. In some cases, teams avoid the real task altogether, focusing instead on activities that feel more comfortable or familiar. Without alignment on what the work actually is, progress becomes inconsistent and difficult to sustain.
Lack of alignment on objectives is something that comes up frequently in my work. I have seen members of leadership teams work toward completely different goals and then wonder why there is a lack of clarity around roles and processes. Further, lack of alignment on goals can manifest in interpersonal issues and things getting personal quickly. I have also seen founders get ahead of themselves, focusing on marketing without a viable product, not identifying priorities, spreading the organization too thin, and avoiding the real work in favor of activity. Activity becomes a substitute for progress when the task is not clearly defined. The result is misalignment among team members, wasted effort, and a lack of forward movement.
The Pattern Beneath the Problem
Weak boundaries lead to unclear roles. Unclear roles lead to authority confusion. Authority confusion leads to task avoidance. Task avoidance leads to more pressure, which ultimately leads to weaker boundaries. The cycle continues. These are not separate issues and must be addressed from a systems perspective. Thus, leadership problems are often system problems caused by breakdowns in boundaries, authority, roles, and task. Because of this interdependence, addressing one issue in isolation rarely leads to lasting change.
Seeing the System Clearly
For leaders, the challenge is not simply to respond to what is visible, but to understand what is driving it. This requires stepping back from immediate symptoms and developing a more complete view of how the team is operating as a system. When these underlying dynamics are made explicit, patterns begin to emerge. Points of friction become easier to diagnose. Conversations that have been circling can move forward. And teams are better positioned to align around the work that matters most. Ultimately, understanding what is really happening inside a team is not always straightforward. But without that understanding, even the best strategies will struggle to take hold.