Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

Why morale varies so much between teams in one company

When morale varies across teams, compare local work conditions and management routines before attributing the difference to attitudes. Look at priorities, workload, discretion, and feedback. Use equivalent evidence and avoid treating a survey gap as a complete assessment of a manager.

Job enrichment is redesign intended to give work greater meaningfulness, responsibility or knowledge of its results. This working definition draws on Hackman and Oldham’s 1980 model in work-design chapter. Adding more duties is not sufficient evidence of enrichment. When comparing teams, inspect the discretion and feedback in their actual jobs rather than assuming that a larger task list means employees have more rewarding work.

Compare the two departments behind the company average

Composite scenario, not a client case: You praise the company’s culture at a family gathering, then read messages from two departments with very different experiences. One team knows how priorities are settled. The other waits for instructions that keep changing. A company-wide average hides the operating contrast.

Take one recent priority conflict from each department. Ask who decided what came first and what information employees received afterward. Then examine whether the teams faced comparable requests. A company-wide culture statement cannot explain that local sequence. Avoid beginning with a verdict on either manager before you know whether one team was absorbing a demand the other never encountered.

Use motivation distinctions as comparison questions

Ryan and Deci’s 2000 synthesis of self-determination theory examines autonomy, competence and relatedness. Use those constructs to ask about the local experience of work: available discretion, support for doing the task and working connections. Do not translate them into a manager score without an appropriate assessment. A survey contrast can prompt these questions, but the theory does not identify the cause of that contrast or rank the managers involved.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, directs attention to the job and its setting as well as the people. The team-condition comparison below is an advisory review. It is not a causal study or a validated manager assessment. Its value is in distinguishing a local routine the manager controls from a resource decision that needs action above the team.

Make the comparison fair enough to use

The comparison concerns the conditions of work around a team. Account for task and resource differences before deciding that either employees or managers explain the result.

Identify what makes the two units comparable and what differs. Consider the work period, incoming demands, staffing and dependencies. Use the same type of evidence for both teams. If one account comes from a full survey and the other from a favorable anecdote, do not combine them into a ranking. Mark the gap and obtain suitable evidence before deciding what the contrast means.

Choose a management routine to inspect directly, such as settling competing priorities or responding to a blocked handoff. Ask for a case, not a description of the manager’s style. Record the instruction, employee response and resulting decision. A frequent meeting schedule does not establish that priorities are clear. An informal routine should also be examined through what it accomplishes rather than dismissed because it lacks a standard label.

Use the team work-condition comparison

  1. Choose comparable work. Select teams or periods whose tasks have relevant similarities. Record demand, staffing and dependency differences before reading the contrast as evidence of management quality. Ask the assessment owner what the available data supports. Keep unequal evidence visible. A comparison can still identify a question worth investigating without being strong enough to justify a ranking or explain why every employee reported their experience.

  2. Inspect local routines. Examine a recent priority decision, delegated task or feedback example in each setting. Ask what employees were told and what happened when they needed clarification. Distinguish the existence of a meeting from a useful decision made through it. Use the same questions across teams. Avoid replacing direct work evidence with a reputation for being a people-oriented manager or with the CEO’s personal ease in working with that leader.

  3. Check demands and resources. Trace incoming work and the inputs necessary to complete it. Identify which conditions the manager controls and which require another executive. Ask what extra requests arrived after priorities were agreed. Keep these constraints beside the local routine. Do not excuse every management choice through workload, but do not hold a manager solely responsible for a company decision they lack the authority to change.

  4. Test one practical improvement. Choose a routine or support correction connected to the observed problem. Assign the local action and the executive contribution separately. Explain which earlier instruction changes. Ask employees how they will encounter the correction and what could make it unusable. Avoid announcing a broad culture campaign before the narrow finding has been addressed, or importing a practice from another team without the authority and resources it depends on.

  5. Review the changed experience. Inspect a current work case and ask whether the promised routine and support were present. Keep changes in demand or staffing in the comparison. Hear a drawback from the manager and a differing account from employees where relevant. Retain the correction when justified, or revise the explanation. Do not infer that an improved score establishes the local change as the sole cause of the result.

If the comparison reveals an immediate uncovered commitment, assign the necessary operating response without waiting to finish the team review. Keep the resource or priority decision explicit. Do not use an urgent intervention to pronounce one manager effective and the other incapable. Return to the comparable evidence afterward so an exceptional case does not silently become the whole assessment of local management.

Explain that the comparison concerns working arrangements

Use this proposed opening before collecting examples from managers and teams. Describe the privacy and reporting limits accurately so participation does not imply a public competition between departments.

We are comparing the work arrangements, not ranking people from a survey score. Show how priorities and decisions reach each team. Then identify the change the local manager can make and the support leadership must provide.

Ask each manager to identify one routine within their control and one constraint requiring executive action. Test those accounts with the work evidence. Give employees a route to describe a different experience without asking them to judge the manager’s character. Record a disagreement about a fact for checking. Avoid treating the more confident presentation as the more accurate account of how the team operates.

Separate unplanned demand from the meeting routine

Hypothetical application: Two teams report different experiences. Their managers use similar meeting schedules, but one receives repeated unplanned customer work. The review redirects intake and clarifies priority decisions before evaluating the remaining management differences.

In the hypothetical, compare the flow of unplanned customer work before comparing the managers’ meetings. Identify which intake decision creates the extra demand and who can change it. After redirecting or prioritizing the work, inspect the remaining local routine. If the experience changes, retain the resource intervention in your explanation. Do not attribute the entire result to manager coaching that happened during the same period.

Choose a local change and the executive support it requires

Specify the routine to change and the work instance it should improve. If the manager is to settle priorities, ensure they can obtain the necessary decision from other functions. Name the executive responsible for a resource or intake constraint outside local authority. Ask the team what the proposed correction leaves unresolved. A company initiative should not make the manager accountable for a dependency leadership continues to withhold.

Keep team comparison distinct from diagnosis or a league table

Do not publish a manager league table from weak comparisons. Avoid treating every low-energy team as disengaged. Persistent symptoms or impairment belong with a licensed clinician, while operational causes still need an owner.

Use qualified assessment advice for the instrument and its reporting boundaries. Keep health inferences out of explanations of team energy. When symptoms continue or affect daily life, consultation belongs with a licensed clinician. A manager can clarify the workload without obtaining private medical details. Likewise, a low score should not substitute for the authorized process needed to assess a manager’s performance or change their employment responsibilities.

Review the corrected condition in both accounts

Review the actual routine and employee access to support. Record whether the comparison changed a resource decision, a management practice, or both.

Check whether the local routine changed and whether the executive support arrived. Ask employees to show how a current request is handled. Compare that case with the original problem and retain major differences in the work context. If a manager introduced a useful practice, identify what it requires before proposing it elsewhere. Copying the visible meeting or document alone may omit the authority that made the practice usable.

Look for a result that challenges your preferred explanation of the manager contrast. A highly rated team may have a lighter intake, while a struggling unit may handle more unresolved dependencies. Equally, a resource improvement may leave an avoidable local behavior unchanged. Keep both possibilities available. The aim is an actionable account of the work, rather than evidence assembled to defend the manager leadership already favors.

Kerr’s 1975 analysis of misaligned rewards examines reward systems inconsistent with desired behavior. Ask what local managers are rewarded for when reviewing morale differences. If leadership praises employee development but advances managers only for immediate volume, inspect that contradiction with actual examples. Do not infer intent from the pattern alone. The source supports examining incentives, not attributing every department difference to its manager’s preferences.

Put the finding into the relevant improvement process

Use the motivation playbook when several work conditions need attention. A capable employee with no growth opportunity may need the high-performer review. A disputed allocation belongs with perceived fairness. Use culture reinforcement to examine how shared signals become local routines. Keep those next steps attached to a finding, rather than prescribing the same intervention to every team below the company average.

Report the routine, resource difference or unresolved evidence gap the comparison established. Name who can act on it. Retain the limits that prevent a causal claim about the manager. A useful comparison changes a decision about the work; it does not need to produce a public ranking of teams or a single explanation for every morale difference.

Sources

Steady at the Top