On this page
Company chat, urgent client issue. Nia messages Olek directly because he can fix the problem quickly. Karim only learns about it later.
— Olek, the client is blocked. Can you look at this right away?
— Sure.
The issue is resolved quickly, but Karim sees that someone has just changed his team’s priorities without involving him.
How does Empatyzer balance speed with decision-making authority?
Empatyzer helps you see that quick contact with an expert can save the client but bypass the leader. This makes it easier to understand how to combine pace with responsibility.
Features that can help:
- You vs. the team: Provides a reference point for the "Why did you write to my team?" situation: shows whether you are similar to the team or clearly different from it in areas such as pace, responsibility and mandate boundaries.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to prepare a conversation with a specific person around the situation "Why did you write to my team?" based on your differences and current context, rather than starting with a generic solution.
- Tips: They help you choose the tone, level of directness and way of expressing expectations in the situation "Why did you write to my team?" to that person, rather than using one message for everyone.
What really happened
Nia sees an urgent client problem and the shortest route to a solution: go straight to Olek, who can fix it. Karim sees the same situation from another position. He is accountable for his team’s priorities and workload, so a direct request to Olek can unintentionally reorder the team’s work without Karim knowing. Nia is not trying to take authority away from Karim. Karim is not trying to block fast collaboration. The conflict sits at the intersection of two reasonable goals: speed and coordination of accountability.
What the research says
When several people or teams work toward a shared outcome, they need both direct channels of communication and clear roles. Research on multiteam systems highlights the importance of coordination across team boundaries and leadership of those interdependencies (Zaccaro et al., 2020). Long-standing research also links ambiguity about roles and responsibilities to workplace problems (role ambiguity; Jackson & Schuler, 1985). None of this means every request must go through the manager. It means a fast route to expertise should not change priorities invisibly for the person who remains accountable for them.
How to handle it
Agree on a simple protocol in advance. For example, in a client-critical issue, Nia can contact the expert directly while informing the team lead at the same time — and avoid promising a deadline until the lead confirms priorities. Less urgent work can go first to the person who owns prioritization. The general rule is: shorten the route to expertise, but do not bypass the information people need to manage accountability and workload.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can show Nia and Karim that they are both protecting the outcome, just different parts of it. Nia sees the quickest route to the person who can solve the client problem; Karim owns the priorities and workload of the whole team. Assessment data, organizational roles, and profile comparison can help Em predict that Nia’s shortcut may feel like bypassing Karim even when it works operationally. Em can immediately suggest a simple route: for urgent issues, contact the person who can act and inform the team owner at the same time. Team-level insights can expose similar friction at department boundaries, while micro-lessons reinforce the rule that speed and accountability do not have to compete when information flow keeps up with action.
Sources
- Stephen J. Zaccaro; Samantha Dubrow; Elisa M. Torres; Lauren N. P. Campbell (2020). Multiteam Systems: An Integrated Review and Comparison of Different Forms. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 479-503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045418 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045418
- Susan E. Jackson; Randall S. Schuler (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.