Directive Phased Intervention. From an unsafe team to a shared new norm.

Leadership announces the process itself, in writing and in plain language: why it is needed, what will happen and that taking part is a given for everyone. The facilitator then introduces themselves to the team with a personal message. Everyone knows who is coming and why, and it is clear that this is not an optional team day.

Why this way. A team at a high level of escalation needs a clear framework from above (Glasl, 1982). At the same time, change works best when the group itself makes the decision (Lewin, 1947). The announcement sets the frame; the content stays with the team.

Everyone has a confidential interview of 45 to 60 minutes, including managers. We do not ask for general opinions, but about concrete situations: what happened, what did you do, what was the outcome? Using the STAR structure (situation, task, action, result), we bring actual behaviour to the surface. Where needed, we work with an interpreter or a written version.

Red flags handled separately. Signs of bullying, intimidation, discrimination or integrity breaches are passed on, with consent, to the right channel: HR, a confidential adviser or an independent investigation. They are not discussed in the team session.

Pattern analysis without names. We combine the interviews into a diagnosis of the system: which cycles keep the problem going? It contains no names or traceable quotes.

Why this way. The critical incident technique systematically collects concrete events (Flanagan, 1954). Behavioural interviews discriminate better than general questions about attitudes or opinions (McClelland, 1998).

In a plenary session, we present the diagnosis. First, we agree ground rules: we talk about behaviour, not people; what is said stays in the room. Then comes the mirror, candid but without names. Everyone first writes down for themselves what they recognise, so that quieter voices are heard too. We then discuss the price of carrying on, formulate together one sentence about where the team wants to go, and draw up six to eight draft ground rules.

Perceived unfairness → mistrust → withdrawal → less open conversation → problems escalate → ‘see, I told you’ ↺

Why this way. People only change when ‘survival anxiety’ outweighs ‘learning anxiety’ (Schein, in Coutu, 2002). The price of carrying on makes the former tangible; ground rules and anonymous methods reduce the latter. The psychological contract makes mutual expectations explicit (Rousseau, 1989).

The team develops the draft agreements into its own code of conduct. Each agreement is made so concrete that everyone can see whether it is being kept: who does what, when, and what do we do when it goes wrong? Everyone then indicates anonymously where they stand.

Why this way. Concrete if-then plans increase the likelihood that intentions turn into behaviour (Gollwitzer, 1999). A visible, committed majority can tip an established group norm (Centola et al., 2018). An anonymous choice prevents people from conforming to what the group seems to want.

After the choice, the real work begins. Each group receives suitable support, followed by a team development programme, for example on trust and constructive conflict, readiness for change and ‘healthy first, then smart’. At pre-agreed moments, we check how things are going, preferably anonymously and with the same questions as at the start.

Attention for those who do not come along. Anyone who hesitates or does not come along is offered a personal conversation, not a label. New colleagues and people who withdrew earlier are actively invited. Decisions are explained and apply to everyone. And there is a pre-agreed route to protect participants if colleagues outside the session react strongly.

Why this way. Exclusion undermines basic needs such as belonging and self-esteem (Williams, 2007). Motivational interviewing shows small but reliable effects on behaviour change (Lundahl et al., 2010). Fair procedures help determine whether people accept decisions (Colquitt, 2001).