Forum

A few months ago I was involved in a project where we had to design a jet engine. We decided to divide the team into four smaller teams, one for each of the main parts of that engine. The two people with I was working and I conflicted with another two people because we finished the work quite early but could not conclude it for the lack of the data that the aforesaid team should have provided us. That caused a conflict because we demanded more time-efficient behaviour, but I realize now that their approach to the project was influenced by the lack of a common view of the project and an excessive amount of independence which inevitably caused a misalignment in the development of the work.

During an on-site inspection training, our team was tasked with locating a radioactive source using specialized detection devices within a limited time. The team consisted of members with different technical backgrounds, and while some of us were experienced with the equipment, the team leader, who was the most senior in age, had limited practical experience and initially insisted on conducting the survey alone. This created a conflict of interest between the need for efficiency and his desire to maintain full control. At first, communication was difficult and the process was slow, which increased time pressure and frustration. However, by calmly and respectfully focusing on the shared objective and the time constraints, we proposed a collaborative solution: dividing the team into two sub-groups so that experienced members could operate the devices in parallel while the leader retained overall coordination. This approach proved functional and led to a more efficient completion of the task. In hindsight, I would raise concerns earlier and propose a clearer division of roles from the beginning to prevent delays and reduce tension within the team.