My approach, in practice
When a situation keeps resisting, you may have already tried several approaches without anything really sticking. Or you are building something new and want to get it right from the start. Here are some of the engagements I have carried out. Do any of them sound familiar?
All cases presented here are anonymised: sectors generalised, figures rounded, identifying details removed. What is preserved is the real dynamic of each situation.
A divided team and a management at risk of making things worse
Team conflict
The situation
A conflict between two colleagues escalated to the point of affecting the entire 10-person team: factions had formed and members no longer knew how to navigate the deteriorating atmosphere. Other teams began to feel the tension, which started impacting collaboration across the organisation. Management had already attempted direct interventions with some team members, including building a closer relationship with one key person. This move raised a question in the team’s mind: is this person becoming our new boss? The next intervention being considered was frontal, which risked entrenching positions even further.
My intervention
I first worked with management to find a way to be part of the solution without imposing it. I then presented the intervention framework to the whole team, making clear that the solution would come from them. After individual interviews with everyone involved, I presented a systemic diagnosis to the team, management and HR, with possible directions for repairing relationships. Individual support for key people was put in place over several months to help them navigate the conflict without compromising themselves, with the aim of rebuilding a collaborative dynamic.
✅ People built bridges between the two factions, enabling the two protagonists to reconnect
✅ The two protagonists are talking and working together again, to management’s surprise
✅ Management revised their approach, understanding how it can either prevent or fuel conflict
✅ Management now defaults to facilitating dialogue to surface solutions when conflict arises
Finding the right balance between professional and personal life
Individual coaching
The situation
A professional was trying to better balance her work and family life. Her solution: protect her Wednesday afternoons. In practice, that slot always ended up absorbing overflow meetings. Her team, well-intentioned, regularly reminded her to keep it free, which added pressure without resolving anything.
My intervention
Exploring her situation in depth, we discovered that a fully protected afternoon was actually working against who she is: she loves her work and loves being invested in it. The problem was not in her schedule, but in the permission she gave herself to work in her own way. Her employer was fully on board with flexibility. We agreed to try a completely different approach: working in a scattered pattern throughout certain days, so she could be present both at work and with her children when needed. The real challenge was feeling genuinely entitled to work that way, without having to justify it.
✅ A daily structure that fits her lifestyle and her work, rather than one imposed from outside
✅ The freedom to work at her own rhythm, with full legitimacy
✅ A balance found without giving up what she loves about her work
Managing a 120-person department with no manager
Shared governance
The situation
The contract of the manager of a 120-person IT department was not renewed. Rather than searching for a replacement when no suitable profile was available, leadership seized the opportunity to shift to a shared governance model. The structure was created during a two-day workshop and domain leads were chosen from within the organisation. The structure existed on paper — the work was to make it real.
My intervention
As an external contributor embedded in the governance as an in-house coach, I supported the creation of a collective decision-making body across all domains and helped each domain lead build their vision and strategy. My involvement led to a formal separation between decision-making (governance meetings), operational follow-up (operational meetings) and organisational adaptation (retrospectives). The retrospectives allowed domains to evolve over time: merging, creating or dissolving them based on real priorities.
✅ Topics that had been left aside before the new structure were taken on
✅ Actively maintaining a shared vision enabled bottom-up initiatives on several subjects
✅ An organisation capable of navigating a budget crisis with a strategy shared across all domains
✅ Other departments inspired to question their own ways of working
A team under pressure that keeps missing deadlines despite successive interventions
Systemic approach
The situation
A development team keeps falling behind. Management responds by imposing regular reporting and cycling through scrum masters to turn things around. Each new scrum master arrives with a plan. Nothing changes. When the last one is let go, the same question comes back: who do we put in their place?
My intervention
I proposed a different approach: put no one in the role, and tell the team clearly that they would be left alone. This deliberate decision and explained to the team allowed to break the pressure-intervention-failure cycle that everyone was trapped in. The hypothesis was that the pressure itself was part of the problem.
✅ The team regained a sense of calm without being asked to
✅ The first deliveries appeared, with no plan or additional reporting
✅ Management understood that their mode of intervention was part of the problem
Project manager, product owner and scrum master each stuck in their own paradigm
Inter-role tension
The situation
A tension between the project manager on one side and the scrum master and product owner on the other, around how to run a project, had gradually deteriorated. Each person tried to regain control in their own way: the scrum master imposed how progress should be measured, the product owner progressively sidelined the project manager, and the project manager sent a weekly status email to the whole team. Every attempt deepened the mistrust. The crisis eventually escalated to top management, who requested an intervention to get the project moving again.
My intervention
I first met with each person individually to understand what was stuck. With the scrum master and product owner, we clarified the project’s needs, both in terms of content and team organisation. A proposed strategy was then presented to the project manager in my presence, so it could be adapted and create a three-way alignment. Concrete initiatives were launched, and I set up a bi-weekly meeting with all three to open a regular dialogue, track the initiatives and build a shared understanding over time.
✅ Each person found their role and learned to make room for the others
✅ Everyone now defaults to bringing in the right person depending on the topic
✅ Needs are expressed and solutions are found together
✅ A plan to request additional budget was co-built and presented to top management as a trio
A scrum master carrying everything while the team grows passive
Leadership in search of itself
The situation
A scrum master wanted to break out of a pattern he felt trapped in: taking too many things on himself and becoming indispensable. He was also personally invested in the outcomes of his facilitation sessions to the point of becoming too interventionist, which was preventing the team from developing.
My intervention
The work focused on posture, grounded in concrete situations that were happening in real time. We explored different ways of intervening suited to different contexts, looking closely at his interactions with his own team as well as his facilitation of workshops with other teams in the organisation.
✅ The scrum master gives his team more space to speak
✅ A quieter team member started contributing in meetings
✅ A senior member naturally stepped back, following the scrum master’s example
✅ The scrum master consciously shifts between different stances depending on context
✅ The team makes decisions without waiting for the scrum master’s validation
✅ The scrum master trusts the decisions made by his team
A director and his managers unable to get aligned
Vertical communication
The situation
Following a reorganisation, an IT director had no regular contact point with his department. One-to-ones with a few managers had been tried, without creating a consistent channel. Messages sometimes passed through an intermediary manager and got distorted along the way. The result: the director only heard about urgent problems, and managers only received negative feedback, with no clarity on the direction expected.
My intervention
I facilitated the gradual setup and adaptation of a monthly touchpoint between the director and the managers. An initial format was put in place and adjusted over successive sessions based on feedback from both sides, until the right structure was found. Managers progressively took ownership of organising these sessions, with two rotating roles: one person coordinating preparation and one facilitating timing during the meeting. The approach to selecting topics and preparing communication later extended to communication with employees, improving transparency across the teams.
✅ Vertical communication flowing in both directions, with a single consistent voice
✅ The director-manager relationship improved through visibility of accomplishments
✅ Greater clarity for managers on priorities, thanks to a restored dialogue with the director
✅ Managers developed their own ability to communicate effectively
Demand stacking up across 5 products running in parallel
A team that stops delivering
The situation
An IT team can no longer keep up with demand: deliverables pile up and priorities collide. Observing from the inside as scrum master, it becomes clear that the team cannot juggle five different products simultaneously without an organisation suited to that reality.
My intervention
I facilitated the co-construction of a solution with the team and the manager. Three principles emerged quickly: at least 2 products per person, at least 2 people per product, and full transparency. An action plan was put in place by identifying gaps against these 3 principles, and a global kanban board made the full flow of work visible.
✅ Each mini-team self-organised around a topic in the way that suited them
✅ A weekly shared meeting allows the team to review flow and re-prioritise
✅ The team spontaneously chose to use Scrum when it fit a specific strategic project
Does one of these situations sound like yours?
30 minutes to understand your context and see what might be useful — free and no commitment