On the Scale, we speak of a 'fight' when it causes damage. 'Getting the other party small' and damaging them has become a goal in itself, with the ultimate consequence being 'if I can't win, at least you won't win either'. Mediation from the outside thus becomes desirable (while the conflicting parties feel no room for this, or balance power; 'what do I gain?'). A dialogue can shed light on what led the parties to this behaviour, by making clear what caused these problems and what it did to those involved. Goals seem opposed, a mediator examines whether they truly are. Restoration of trust seems far away, again mediation from outside is needed to reach a common position, so this can also mean a parting of ways and a compromise with only dissatisfied parties.

We talk about conflict on the Scale when a perceived contradiction turns into a fight. It then quickly becomes about 'winning or losing' and one of the weapons is to play it on the person, making it personal. People also put pressure on bystanders: 'Are you for or are you against?' 'My solution is the only solution.' However, do you want to overcome these contradictions and put a period of conflict behind you? Then ask for team coaching. A warring team experiences that alignment no longer works and outside help is needed to break the stalemate. Annoyance destroys more than it can heal again. A team coach aims to teach a team to transform difficulties into opportunities. Possibilities are linkable, and 'solutions' get frozen in conflict.

In a Struggling setting, conflict becomes locked in 'who will win'-mode. There is also a Cooperative form of conflict. We call this the 'constructive conflict'. Participants see the danger and, in addition, an opportunity to put on the table what may have been kept in the closet before, left unspoken, complained about with others.

Constructive conflict is a conflict about which conversation is possible, where people exchange arguments 'on the task' and 'because of behaviour'. This conversation can be firm, yet we position it under Cooperation. The participants are okay, people (eventually) express this to each other. Trust came under pressure, but was eventually strengthened. In addition, there is awareness among all participants that growth and development are needed to arrive at a jointly desired situation and to hold each other therein positively.

On the Scale, we distinguish between criticism and feedback. We call it criticism if it is given with (or from) irritation. The criticism giver experiences powerlessness to achieve a desired situation himself, the colleague is needed for the desired goal. The other person 'gets in the way', 'does something wrong' or 'fails to do something', jeopardising results. Colleagues with a direct communication style do not always perceive that the recipient cannot receive it as positive feedback. Given 'feedback' can be too harsh, without nuance, without privacy, from power imbalances. We then call it on the Scale 'Criticism'. The reaction is more than the 'feedback '-giver likes: denial, feigning (saying yes no) or discussion. Or as it is also said: a reaction of freeze, flight, feign or fight. In a Struggling setting, people point at the other and are not open to counterarguments. It is a low-learning atmosphere. More than average, it leads to stagnation, a vicious circle in which criticism increases. Who will cut the knot through here? The danger of conflict is present and, in addition, also an opportunity to engage in conversation, although irritation is not going to help.

Talking about (and talking to) can (both) be positive and lead to advice. However, if a team is in a stalemate - the team members do talk about a dilemma for a long time, but no one ties the knot and progress is lacking, this does something (negative) to motivation. People become more distant from each other.

There is a lot to do about 'the undercurrent' in teams. There is a systemic side to that; once established, it definitely requires attention.

Talking about has a negative side, where irritation already takes possession of heads, but is not yet visible in criticism, let alone engaging in conversation and providing constructive feedback. Thus, savings cards are created in which each stamp notes something negative. Complaining, also gossiping, with malicious talk (perceived as such) in superlatives make 'Talking about' into a poison factory and snake pit in which nobody wants to live.
Not many people realise that 'Talking about' can lead to a lack of mutual trust. Can you still trust a colleague if the colleague in question complains about the other without wanting to engage in conversation?

The 'On your own' position on the Scale is about acting solo. You prefer to do it yourself, or, if the other person does nothing then you 'do it yourself' to still get something moving. But a connection and learning environment are missing here. Work does come, but what goes away if you still get an extra task? Working from home has reinforced the solo nature of On your own (during corona).

In our team coaching field, this has led to a huge increase and focus on connection and need for commitment.

Burnout victims (one in seven salaried Dutch people experience it!) have relied on their own strengths for too long. Could not turn to colleagues or did not want to ('everyone is too busy...'). Were not seen and did not get the relief in time that in hindsight was needed. Were 'on their own' until the body signalled, 'it won't go on like this'.

Are you also someone who doesn't want to complain and 'just prefers' to do it yourself, because enabling others only takes even more time?

We are talking to each other! That can be a relief - but it can also lead to nothing. Because being in conversation, consulting, and meeting, in itself does not lead to results. 'We're a great team, we don't need team building' can thus also indicate an elusive team, which chooses to be mainly nice to each other. Nothing wrong with that, by the way, as long as people also dare to be honest.
'We have a great time together', but what about results and learning?
Is there a healthy moving balance between task and team here?
Or is the fear of losing freedom an underlying reason for rejecting further growth?

Being nice to each other is obviously good, so is working together respectfully. However, being nice can also become an obstacle to genuinely addressing issues, and expressing a desire for growth and improvement. This then requires more and more courage. Without courageous people (eventually with some outside support), cooperation stagnates.

Being in conversation with each other can remain non-committal, but it can also lead mutually to an attitude in which each recognises that one can do something. An open attitude in which the question 'what can I do' resonates. Once this leads to an agreement on who picks up what and how we learn from the mistakes together START a cooperation.
In a cooperation, you participate.

The position map 'Create Clarity' is a step that precedes Feedback and in 2024 became a separate step on the Scale of Cooperation.

Clarity is only really there when it is mutual, interlocutors are clear in their goals and are transparent about their experience, feelings and intentions and the process in which growth or strengthening of cooperation can take place. You can only agree together on who does what and when to come back to it when this clarity is there.

We find that mutually 'creating clarity' is key to working well together in many teams. A manager and staff dare to be vulnerable and bold, which gives clarity about what is going on in each of them. Colleagues appreciate this. A 'no, this is not going to work like this' is heard. Cooperation develops in which people listen and empathise. People no longer get stuck in convincing each other. Getting around the table and creating clarity is where trust will grow. By showing courage, being open, honest and transparent, you surrender freedom, and it becomes clear: you get a team in return.

Addressing each other in a learning way becomes natural in a cooperative team, what is heavy and damaging in a Struggling situation, avoided in an Escaping situation, becomes light and supportive in a Cooperating situation. Just as there is and remains 'hassle' in Struggling situations, there is also hassle in a Avoiding and Cooperating situation. It is just handled very differently. In a Cooperative situation, hassles are dealt with. By salvaging learning experiences, mistakes occur less often, are seen earlier and are picked up in time. Team growth may go step by step, but it never stops.

Periodic maintenance of cooperation helps a team grow. Every top team has a lot of practice behind it and continues to train. This is true not only in sports. Well-cooperating teams know that. With this training, your team will learn to score under pressure. Feedback is at the heart of this.

Giving feedback is one thing, securing the feedback is what makes it (successful) feedback.

Consolidating has a monitoring side: what went well, what can be improved? It also has a creative side, which we call co-creation. Especially under pressure, a team that is clear about its goals shows commitment to achieving these goals and can perform at its best. Everyone has - we expect - an example of such a moment of 'flow'. Everything needed is organised collectively. Half a word is enough to set someone in motion. Even a directive growl gives team members positive direction. With only one goal: to succeed, together!