A Hard Topic for Teams: Financial Security
In recent months, I have worked with two teams with a similar focus: having team members tilt more toward team goals, and at the same time being less protective of their own domains.
For these and other team conversations, Patrick Lencioni’s book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, has long been a useful guide. The core model – that trust leads to (healthy) conflict, commitment, accountability, and results – makes strong intuitive sense and the parable in the book brings the ideas to life.
Yet I felt, with both teams, there was something missing that preceded trust: security. Most people have financial needs they meet through working. They need to support themselves, and maybe others in their lives. They have a long list of commitments and expenses: rent, mortgage, tuition and other debt, future retirement and tuition costs, and much more.
So, they care about financial security and, hence, job and career security.
These can be tough topics because:
They touch on raw emotions, anxieties, and insecurities
They involve personal finances, which are close to taboo in the workplace
They can touch on identity and one’s sense of purpose, value, and belonging
People often have very different career, financial, and personal situations, and the differences can be uncomfortable
People often have questions like: if I focus more on team goals and results, will I be valued the same? Will it be clear how I’m contributing? Will the team leader or others wonder whether I’m really needed, and will that put my job at risk? Will it affect my career progression, professional reputation, and ability to land future roles?
It’s often the team leader – the one advocating for more team unity – who has more security. They’re farther in their career, with more in wealth accumulation, job security, and professional standing.
That can make other team members feel a sense of asymmetry: the team leader is asking something that has far more risk for the members than for the team leader.
With both teams I mentioned above, it has been necessary to discuss real feelings about security. It doesn’t mean oversharing, or compelling people to share. It does mean getting real about the strong forces that might affect team members’ ability and willingness to function, truly, as one team.
The “let’s put the team first” discussion is at risk for being happy talk, avoidant of tougher issues that might, down the road, lead to unseen resistance. That’s why security needs to be on the table. It’s a tough conversation, but maybe the one that leads to real trust.