I went to Columbia University in New York for a master's degree in organizational psychology and discovered that I could turn this into a profitable passion.

You wrote a book called “The Bonfire Moment,” where you note that people problems are a more common reason organizations fail than business-related reasons. What kind of people problems are the most likely to lead to failure?

The first thing to say is that the anchor point of this book is a classic study out of Harvard and McKinsey, that shows 65 percent of start-ups fail because of people issues. And the number one reason for that is cofounder conflict.

And on the face of it, it sounds like, “Oh, they just can't get along.” But actually, there are some important decisions that happen at the very early stages that are taken for granted and spell a lot of pain down the line.

For instance, we know that the least stable partnerships are partnerships where the origin story is that they were friends and family first.

More stable than that are acquaintances, who find each other through an interview-style process. Then most stable are former coworkers. So that's one – who you choose to build this company with.

Then there’s the mistake of just splitting equity equally, then the beginnings of the feelings of unfairness, and the reality is that there's no team that will ever contribute equally across the board.

A classic example is a company will start off saying, “We want to be a B2C company” and then pivots to B2B. That's a whole different skill set. What if one of these founders doesn't have that skill set and yet they hold a third of the equity?

Then there's the pressures that investors add to the work, where there is an optimization around speed. And when you optimize around speed, some of the issues that that will cost you in the future somehow get discounted.

Then all the many things that unfurl when you have those three things come into play – a toxic team environment, not being able to attract good people, keeping the mediocre ones, not letting go of them.

If you're a manager or a leader, how can you help your team to avoid these problems?

There are two sets of answers to that. The first includes making sure that you keep your eye on two games: the short game and the long game.

At the beginning, the short game needs to be the biggest preoccupation – you need to survive. Who cares about the long game if you can't even survive in the here and now?

But you need to spend a bit of time on the long game and that means finding the right partners, hiring correctly. That means addressing small, toxic issues of the team culture early on and decisively.

Secondly, the reason why we call it the Bonfire Moment is the work of being an entrepreneur, of building a start-up, feels like you're constantly in the fire.

There's so much intensity and high expectations and feelings of inadequacy swirling in this pressure-cooker environment. The Bonfire Moment is a chance for folks to step out of that fire just for a day.

It's an intense day where you have a chance to face some hard truths about how you show up in the work. It helps uncover hidden dynamics in the team. It helps confront all these feelings of “impostorship” and to deal with unspoken issues.

You lead a team process called a “bull***t circle.” How is that connected to the bonfire moment?

The bull***t circle sits in the center of the day. It comes from the realization that in the start-up world – when you're working towards impossible goals under tight time constraints – failure and setbacks are inevitable.

A lot of young founders expect that while they feel inadequate today, over time, they'll feel a lot more confident in their capabilities. And then what they see around them in the start-up ecosystem: which is a lot of people talking a big game, making it seem like no one is failing.

So a lot of founders come home thinking, “I must be the worst at this,” and they grab at certain masks to help pretend.

Optimism is a mask we sometimes wear, where we project helpfulness, and we paper over the hard issues of the business. We talk about strength as a mask, where you show prestige, and you lean on past successes, and you guarantee people that we’re going to succeed because “we are great.” Detachment is another mask, when people want to be incognito, projecting calm and independence.

And all these masks, while they’re effective in the moment to protect our egos, they could result in a less-optimal team. And so through the bull***t circle, it's a chance for people to come clean and say, “This is how you’ll know I’m under a lot of pressure, a lot of self-doubt. So, team, spot those signals and help me through those moments.”

Is there an example of a problem you’ve helped a team to solve?

One company came to me at a point where they are ready to basically quit on each other. The head of engineering cofounder has had top people leave; the CEO, who's more of the fundraising business guy, decides to give the head of engineering some space. He didn't want to add more pressure.

So he just didn’t intervene. He didn't have the technical skill to contribute to the product build and at the same time, he realized, “I should probably do some consulting gigs on the side just in case this whole thing blows up.”

And then one day, TechCrunch, a big online magazine, ask one person to represent the company, and so the CEO thinks, “Well, my CTO is very busy; let me take the interview.”

And here the CTO realizes “I am the invisible founder. I'm doing all the work, and my cofounder gets all the credit. I should have been CEO.”

So that dynamic plays out and there's gossip and backstabbing in the team by the time we bring them together for their Bonfire Moment.

We helped them confront some of the issues simmering under the surface. And just by bringing it out into the light, it was a chance to create better understanding around what's actually going on in this company.

There was a thought that the CEO had given up on the company because of the side gigs. He actually still had very much interest in it and didn’t realize that his actions were communicating otherwise.

So they end up launching the product, albeit a little bit late, but it was a product that eventually became very meaningful to its users.

Do you see any differences in how these tools can be applied at different levels? For example, the leadership level versus if you're a middle manager or a new manager?

We found that these tools apply quite readily across different levels. When you have a combination of really big goals, really tight constraints, and an ambitious team that create an intense working environment, these tools become valuable. You almost need a release valve to help them cope.

Do you have any final advice or resources for strengthening team management?

It's so important not to take the people aspect of this for granted. There's a lot of excitement around many other things other than the people issues – and yet we know that it's what sinks the most promising start-ups.

What's Next?

As we’ve heard from Martin, when things start to go wrong in any business, the gossip and backstabbing can begin. Our article Rumors in the Workplace can help prevent this and deal with the fallout. For further insight into leading a team through difficult times, take a look at our video, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team.

Tip of the Week

Seeing Behind the Poker Face

By Kevin Dunne, Mind Tools Content Editor and Writer

I used play poker when the wave hit in the early 2000s. As I got into the game, I realized that while the cards you were dealt meant something, what mattered most was who you were playing

Were they bluffing or did they really have the cards? Were they lying or telling the truth? Your great friend at the table was the ability to read body language.

One of the best sources for finding out about this was the FBI guys, who shared the common “tells” they used to judge whether someone was telling the truth.

Key to this was listen, don’t talk. Liars often speak faster, louder, their voices crack, and there’s a lot of clearing of the throat.

What they say is important too, so if they are short on detail, speak formally, or give exaggerated responses, be on your guard.

Saying “no” and looking in another direction or with eyes closed are other giveaways.

Reading body language is your gateway into understanding people and what they are really saying. For further information, see our article Top Tips for Understanding Body Language.

Pain Points Podcast

If communicating and collaborating for work depletes your energy, you're likely an introvert. And there are many benefits to being one of the quieter and more sensitive members of the team.

But introversion takes its toll, too. You may have to take extra care with your wellbeing and find ways to let others know what you need.

Karolina Szweda is a coach who specializes in supporting introverts to thrive at work, and she's Jonathan's guest on this week's Pain Points: "Help! I'm an Introvert."

Subscribe Today

News Roundup

This Week's Global Workplace Insights

Don't Follow the Leader

Leaders are starting to worry – not because someone clever and ambitious wants their job, but because no one does.

U.S. management consultant giants Korn Ferry report that, in a recent survey, 72 percent of Gen Zers (born between 1997 and 2012) have no interest in becoming managers.

The firm say that Gen Zers, who now make up 30 percent of the workforce, would rather be individual contributors than middle managers. And that this trend, “conscious unbossing,” is making leaders worry about future generations.

It’s not just the kids either, as just under 40 percent of people in a survey said they would pass up a promotion to be a manager, citing “workload, stress, and work-life balance as more important.”

Shanda Mints, Korn Ferry’s vice president for RPO Analytics and Implementation, said, “Gen Z is seeing the responsibilities, but not the rewards, so why move up?”

Still, for the other 28 percent of Gen Zers, a lot of doors just opened.

Serving up Conflict Resolution

Managers have a lot on their plate. And one of their most challenging and growing roles is resolving workplace conflict.

Workplace news site Worklife reported a Gartner survey this month that revealed 56 percent of managers said they are fully responsible for managing and resolving team conflicts.

Most managers aren’t properly trained in resolving conflicts on their teams and while HR roles are typically more experienced, bringing these professionals in often only escalates the situation, experts say.

Political conversations are a large driver of conflict, said Emily Rose McRae, senior director analyst at Gartner. Especially so with the U.S. presidential election on the horizon.

She said, “People are, by algorithmic bias and by personal bias, exposed to people who think like them. The workplace is one of the few places that you are likely to be exposed to people who think differently.”

Myers-Briggs’ head of thought leadership, John Hackston, suggests managers who approach conflicts with a collaborating approach and are assertive and cooperative often have the best outcomes.

But he warns, “It takes more time, it takes buy-in from both parties, and a certain level of interpersonal skills as well.”

For more tips on how to handle this thorny subject, see our article Conflict Resolution.

See you next week for more member-exclusive content and insight from the Mind Tools team!