Two VPs at an organization we worked with years ago were going at it.

One was a business lead. The other ran strategic communications.

They were butting heads constantly, and eventually the business VP said something that stuck with me.

"I build these castles and you knock them down."

From the business VP's perspective, this was sabotage. From the communications VP's perspective, she was doing her job: editing, refining, pressure-testing the work before it went public.

Neither of them was wrong! They were an Expert and a Disruptor on the same team, doing exactly what their leadership wiring told them to do.

The problem wasn't the people. It was that nobody had diagnosed what kind of problem they were actually dealing with.

I think about this all the time, because it's one of the most common traps team leads fall into. Something feels off on the team, and they immediately jump to fixing it.

But before you fix anything, you need to answer one question:

Is it the task, the team, or the toxicity?

These are three very different problems, and they require three very different responses.

Sometimes the tension is baked into the work itself. You've got someone with an operations mindset and someone with a strategic mindset assigned to the same project, and they're going to see it differently. That friction is natural, even healthy. It means the work is getting pressure from multiple angles, which is usually a good thing.

Sometimes it's the team dynamic. People don't understand how each other lead. They can't name the tension, so they take it personally. This is where a lot of conflict festers, because the real issue is invisible to everyone involved.

And sometimes, honestly, it is a person. You've got someone bringing toxic energy, and they need to go. But toxic players who are also high performers are really good at covering their tracks. They throw sand in your eyes. "Oh no, it's the team." Or: "The work is just hard right now."

It's like a teacher who punishes the whole class because one kid was talking. Maybe it is the whole class. But maybe the lunchroom tables are too small. Or maybe it really is just Johnny and Sally, and nobody else has a problem.

You could try a lot of fixes that are never going to work if you're fixing the wrong thing.

The leaders I trust most don't rush to solutions. They do detective work first - talking to people, watching the dynamic, getting curious about what's really happening underneath the surface before they start rearranging the furniture.

That one question - is it the task, the team, or the toxicity? - will save you from solving a problem that doesn't exist and missing the one that does.

The Trailblazers assessment identifies four core leadership styles, each with its own strengths, blind spots, and growth edges. 

If you haven't taken it yet, start here →

Once you know your style, check back on this section each week for tailored advice.

The Chief: You see dysfunction early and feel responsible for fixing it fast. That instinct is good, but slow down. Your tendency to take charge can mean you diagnose and prescribe in the same breath. This week, sit with the question longer than feels comfortable. Ask your team what they're seeing before you tell them what you've concluded.

The Innovator: When team dynamics get heavy, your instinct is to propose something new: a new process, a new structure, a fresh start. But if the real issue is a toxic player or a mismatched dynamic, innovation won't solve it. Before you redesign anything, make sure you know which of the three problems you're actually dealing with.

The Disruptor: You're usually the first person to sense that something is wrong, and you're not afraid to say it. That's valuable. But make sure you're diagnosing, not just reacting. There's a difference between naming the tension and assuming you already know the source. Use your clarity to ask better questions this week, not just to push for faster answers.

The Expert: You tend to stay focused on your own work and avoid team drama. That's a strength — until it means you're ignoring a dynamic that's affecting the quality of what everyone produces. You don't have to lead the intervention, but you can be the person who says, "I've been watching this, and here's what I think is actually going on." Your observation is a form of leadership.