The greatest risk to organizational stability is its people - but you are probably missing the greatest opportunity for growth because you’re too busy focused on putting out fires. Most organizations try to identify struggling teams by looking for the obvious: missed deadlines, high turnover, or frequent conflicts. Often the teams that get the most attention are the ones with leaders who are toxic, destructive or perform so poorly they are restructured or removed. These often become an HR issue, which may or may not be handled effectively. But the real danger to organizational performance isn't always where the fires are burning.
The teams that quietly struggle, the ones flying under the radar, are often the ones that erode performance the most. And the reason is simple: silence.
The Power of Inversion in Identifying Silent Struggles
In 2021 I was working with a team that had been identified as having a low psychological safety score and according to the contract at the time would trigger the involvement of myself as an external facilitator. The low benchmark for this contract was a score of less than 63. This team was a 61 - right on the boundary but I wasn’t expecting anything overtly toxic. So I kicked off by meeting with the team leader - and separately - their line manager.
After talking to both a picture began to emerge that was more troubling than the score had indicated.
The Team leader expressed frustration with a new structure that his team had been required to implement. The team hated it - and he didn’t know how to help them. The team had seen good people leave and psychological safety decline from much higher levels (82) over the previous 14 months.
The line manager was smart, capable and more experienced than I expected. But they were ignorant to this issue - they hadn’t flagged anything. They were completely oblivious to anything going on in that team that was overly concerning.
The team had quietly struggled for more than a year until things were so bad that a low benchmark triggered an intervention with an external resource.
After a team development session and some consulting/coaching sessions with the leader they were back on track. Performance significantly improved over the following quarter mainly through a significant drop in project completion time - it was cut in half.
The process had cost them though, several good people had left the organization, and lost trust in the team by both internal and external stakeholders.
Here is what was missing:
The team leader lacked some competencies to manage change and a new process
The line manager also lacked competency and didn’t create enough psychological safety for the team leader to speak-up and ask for help. “Everything is fine” was seen as an acceptable check-in
The line manager was on the look out for the wrong warning signs
The fix was simple - and the problems could have been avoided much sooner.
The concept of inversion is a powerful problem-solving technique in statistics and decision-making. Instead of asking, "What makes a great team?" Inversion flips the question: "What does a struggling team look like?" Rather than seeking visible dysfunction, inversion helps us look for what’s missing—specifically, a lack of dissent, debate, or even discussion.
Put another way - it's a team that doesn’t make any noise.
When we are talking about psychological safety one of the elements we are looking for is open conversations within the team. We are watching the nature of the interactions.
Top teams make the right kind of noise.
They challenging each other
They give and invite feedback
They share information, ideas and insight between each other
They challenge the status quo - AND their own assumptions.
Struggling teams also make noise - but it usually comes in the form of:
Reports to HR
Rumours or anonymous reporting
Poor performance, turnover, missed deadlines
Making excuses & laying blame
The area of greatest opportunity for any organization is to maximize the full potential of your people.
If you want to identify the teams worth your effort. Look for the ones that say nothing at all.
The Teams You Never Hear From Are the Ones to Worry About
Teams with low psychological safety often don’t speak up, even when things are going wrong.
But it is the teams that have just enough psychological safety to avoid detection but not enough to perform as well that provide the greatest potential for growth. This is for 2 reasons:
A small increase in psychological safety, improvement in accountability and competencies can lead to significant
There's a good chance this is a big chunk of your teams.
It goes like this
It’s easy to help a C player become a B player
It’s easy to help a B player become an A player
But it’s a huge lift to make the class clown and A player
C and B players get their work done—barely—but they aren’t engaged in improving processes, challenging assumptions, or contributing beyond their immediate tasks. These teams don’t bring problems forward because it’s not worth the risk. They’ve learned that speaking up is punished or ignored, so they opt for the safer route: quiet compliance or ignorant diligence.
As a brief thought experiment, imagine what your organization would look like by the end of the year if 50% of your teams were even 5% more effective?
And the fix? Usually it’s an awareness & competency gap that can easily be filled.
Why These Teams Are More Dangerous Than Openly Struggling Teams
Dysfunctional teams that fight, complain, or escalate issues are at least giving leaders a signal that something is wrong. But silent teams? They appear to be functioning. They submit reports. They meet deadlines (enough that they don’t draw attention). But beneath the surface, they're in survival mode, contributing the bare minimum and withholding the insights, creativity, and discretionary effort that fuel high performance.
Leaders often overlook these teams because they aren’t causing visible problems. But in reality, these teams act like slow leaks in an organization’s performance. Over time, they drain innovation, engagement, and trust from the company culture, creating a stagnant environment where performance plateaus and problems fester beneath the surface.
Spotting the Silent Struggle
Using inversion, leaders can spot these hidden struggles by asking:
- Which teams contribute the least but receive no complaints?
- Where do people rarely challenge ideas, ask questions, or suggest improvements?
- Which teams never seem to have problems or concerns – but don’t fall into your top 20% of contributors?
- Which teams show signs of quiet disengagement, such as passive turnover (employees leaving without voicing concerns)?
- Which areas of the business never seem to develop new leaders?
What to Do About It
Measure Psychological Safety Proactively – Use pulse surveys or structured assessments to measure psychological safety beyond surface-level engagement metrics. (we recommend doing this a couple times a year and building it into how leaders receive support in their role)
Watch for Absence, Not Just Presence – Identify teams that consistently fail to participate in discussions or feedback opportunities.
Encourage Small Risks First – Start by inviting teams to voice small concerns or ideas to lower the threshold for speaking up.
Model Vulnerability as a Leader – Show that it’s safe to admit uncertainty, make mistakes, and challenge the status quo.
Recognize and Reward Contribution, Not Just Compliance – Shift the focus from "Did they get it done?" to "Did they improve it?" or risk the consequences of ignorant diligence.
High-performing organizations don’t just fix the most obvious problems—they identify and capitalize on opportunity. By reversing the question, leaders can stop focusing only on overtly struggling teams and start paying attention to the ones suffering in silence. If your quietest teams never speak up, it’s time to listen closer. The teams that seem "fine" might be the ones holding your organization back the most.
Comments