Shared Purpose or Hidden Agenda? Why Teams Fail to Align (and How to Fix It)

My Reflection on Team Disconnect

I’ve been wrestling with a stubborn truth lately: while the power of teamwork is universally acknowledged—after all, 90% of employees believe it’s indispensable for organizational success—the reality is far murkier. Only about 25% of employees actually rate their own teams as effective. This gap, between the ideal of a cohesive unit and the reality of internal struggles, often stems from team members prioritizing hidden individual agendas over collective results.

To navigate this complexity and drive better outcomes, I rely on structured management frameworks, known as Team Effectiveness Models. These models are critical, especially in larger enterprises where complex team structures require clear guidance to foster a culture of accountability and learning.

The Lencioni Diagnosis: When Trust Crumbles

I find Patrick Lencioni’s framework, the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, to be the clearest path to diagnosing fundamental misalignment, noting that issues occur sequentially, building upon a shaky foundation. If I find a later issue, I know I must look for the deeper, unresolved problems beneath it.

1. Dysfunction: The Absence of Trust (The Foundation)

This is where every hidden agenda starts. Trust is the absolute foundation of teamwork. Trust, defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of others because you expect favorable outcomes, is essential. When trust is missing, team members conceal weaknesses and mistakes, and they jump to negative conclusions about their peers’ intentions. They keep their “protective armor” on.

2. Dysfunction: The Fear of Conflict

When trust is absent, vulnerability becomes too risky, leading to a fear of conflict. I see teams preserve an “artificial harmony,” stifling the open disagreement that is necessary to reach effective decisions and resolutions.

3. Dysfunction: The Lack of Commitment

If team members don’t feel their ideas are valued because they didn’t engage in open discussion, they won’t fully commit to the resulting decisions. Achieving team buy-in and gaining commitment to the common goal is vital for cohesive progress.

4. Dysfunction: The Avoidance of Accountability

Here’s the natural follow-on: if individuals haven’t bought into the direction, they won’t feel truly accountable for the outcome. This reluctance to hold peers responsible leads to missed deadlines and mediocre work, effectively undermining high standards.

5. Dysfunction: The Inattention to Results (The Triumph of the Hidden Agenda)

The pinnacle of dysfunction occurs when team members, unchecked by accountability, focus on individual goals or personal status rather than collective success. This means personal advancement has derailed the entire team’s journey.

Why Alignment Evaporates: The Interpersonal Threat

It’s clear that a team needs a shared sense of purpose (as highlighted by the GRPI Model’s focus on explicit goal setting and the Hackman Model’s compelling direction). But clarity isn’t enough if people don’t share the same understanding of how the team operates, known as shared cognition. If I interviewed every member separately, they should agree on who is responsible for tasks and who makes decisions.

The most significant barrier I’ve observed is the underlying presence of interpersonal threat. Individuals routinely act in ways that inhibit learning—they avoid asking for help or admitting errors—because these actions threaten their reputation or image. When faced with the potential for embarrassment, people tend to act defensively. The act of engaging in learning behaviour (like discussing errors or seeking feedback) is perceived as risky because the outcome is uncertain.

Our Playbook: Structuring for Safety and Shared Purpose

To truly fix misalignment, we must systematically address these psychological and structural deficits.

1. Establish Psychological Safety

Research consistently shows that team psychological safety—a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking—is the cornerstone of high performance. This environment allows teams to take proactive learning-oriented actions.

To build this safety:

Model vulnerability: As a leader, openly discussing your own mistakes encourages team members to do the same, fostering mutual respect and honesty.
Promote Open Communication: We must make an extra effort to include reserved members, creating a culture of transparency where sharing ideas is safe.
Focus on Intentions: Teams interpret negative feedback constructively when they believe the intent is helpful, not critical.

2. Foster Constructive Conflict and Commitment

Psychological safety enables the team to transition from dysfunctional avoidance to constructive conflict. This type of conflict is vital because it stimulates critical analysis and in-depth discussion, resulting in better decisions.

Establish rules of engagement: Make it clear that respectful disagreement is not only acceptable but encouraged.
Reward candour: When someone raises a problem, thank them for it, even if their viewpoint doesn’t prevail. This reinforces that raising issues is helpful, not awkward.

To solidify commitment, ensure team members feel they have a voice in decision-making. Also, leaders must regularly communicate the team’s vision and goals to ensure everyone understands how their work fits into the larger context.

3. Drive Accountability with Structure

Alignment requires effective structural support. The Hackman Model highlights the need for an enabling structure (clear roles, well-designed tasks) and a supportive context (resources, information, and rewards).

To overcome the avoidance of accountability:

Define clear expectations: Team members need to know what is expected of them by both managers and peers.
Be consistent: Apply performance standards equally across the board.
Make results visible: Setting shared targets and making progress measurable encourages mutual accountability, ensuring people “pull their weight”.

Furthermore, leadership itself should focus on the 7 drivers of team effectiveness (Capability, Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, Cognition, Conditions, and Coaching) to ensure the team has everything it needs to learn and adapt.

A Note on Team Building (Stop the Fluff)

My biggest frustration comes from traditional team-building workshops. Why do most fail? Because they mistakenly offer simple, naive solutions to complex, chronic problems. They might offer a quick “morale boost” but deliver “temporary smiles, not sustainable engagement”.

The real challenge is that teams often face tensions that need to be managed, not problems that can be solved permanently. These are clashes between equally legitimate values, such as the tension between Planning vs. Action or Encouragement vs. Critical Analysis.

To achieve real alignment, team interactions must be redesigned as deliberate experiences aligned with organizational goals.

Braver Strides' 4 Rules for Purposeful Alignment:

Define the Intention: Before choosing an activity (e.g., an Escape Room, or Corporate Shark Tank), clarify the purpose: Is it for building trust, improving communication, or aligning strategic thinking? Activities without purpose are forgettable.
Focus on Tensions: Use activities that help the team recognize and learn to manage complex, competing values.
By designing for safety and purpose, we can finally dismantle those hidden agendas and see what happens when everyone truly pulls in the same direction.
Prioritize Reflection: Always close with a debrief/reflection session. This is crucial for translating the fun experience into tangible, day-to-day collaboration improvements.
Use Strategic Tools: Implement Gamified Collaboration Challenges or activities using real business scenarios that enhance problem-solving and collaboration. For large groups (50 to 500+ members), collaborative activities like Mural Painting are excellent choices.

Final Thought

Achieving true team alignment isn’t about finding a magic “on” switch; it’s about meticulously tending to the team’s shared belief system. Think of it like conducting an orchestra (the team). The shared purpose is the complex symphony they must perform. If the conductor (the leader) fails to establish a climate of psychological safety, where musicians feel secure enough to critique the score (constructive conflict) and admit they missed a note (absence of trust), the result won’t be a symphony of shared success, but a discordant cacophony of individual efforts and masked insecurities (inattention to results). The fix lies in the conductor leading by vulnerable example, ensuring that every player feels valued and respected, thereby making the success of the music itself the only result that matters.