A Story About Teamwork, Deadlines, and the Fine Art of Not Killing Your Colleagues
Written by Melvin Bosso
Prologue: The Email That Started Everything
It arrived on a Tuesday. Tuesdays are the worst day for bad news, because Monday has already beaten you up and Friday feels impossibly far away.
The email had a subject line that read: “Tamian Industries RFP Issued: Enterprise Transformation Planning. Response Due in 14 Days.”
Oliver, the team lead, read it twice. Then he read the attachment. Then he made a very strong coffee and read the attachment again. Tamian Industries was one of the largest agricultural and chemicals companies in the Asia-Pacific region a sprawling, complex, genuinely impressive beast of a business with operations across New Zealand and Australia, a workforce in the tens of thousands, and a top-down cost-reduction target of seven hundred million dollars that their board had announced publicly, which meant their CEO was very, very motivated.
The RFP asked for a 15-slide response. It covered six workstreams: management office, cost transformation, working capital, network optimization, customer analytics, and reporting/KPI design. It wanted credentials, methodology, a roadmap, a proposed team, and in the client’s own words “evidence that you understand our business at a level that makes us feel you have already been working here for a year.”
Oliver stared at that last sentence for a long time.
Then he sent a calendar invite to five people. The invite said: “Tamian war room. This week. Bring ideas. Bring snacks. Don’t bring bad vibes.”
Those five people were Violet, John, Jake, David, Juliane, and Mark. That is six people. Oliver is bad at counting when he is stressed.
Meet the Team
Before we get into the working sessions, you need to know who these people are. Because the story only makes sense if you understand that putting these six individuals in a room together is a little bit like putting a pressure cooker, a weather vane, a metronome, a flame-thrower, a library, and a golden retriever in the same kitchen and asking them to bake a soufflé. And doing it simultaneously across Auckland and Sydney, on a video call with a two-hour time difference that nobody ever remembers when booking the meetings.
Oliver is the Managing Partner leading the bid. He has been in consulting for twenty-two years, which means he has the calm, slightly weathered look of a man who has survived many things two financial crises, four firm-wide restructurings, and at least one all-nighter that lasted until the following all-nighter. Oliver is based in Sydney. He is excellent at seeing the big picture. He is less excellent at remembering that not everyone else can see the big picture too. His default setting when under pressure is to pace. He paces so much that the carpet in front of his whiteboard is noticeably shorter than the rest of the office carpet. He also has a habit of scheduling nine AM calls without specifying which time zone, which has made him briefly unpopular on at least three occasions.
Violet is a Senior Partner in cost transformation, based in Auckland. She is precise, methodical, and constitutionally incapable of letting an imprecise number slide past her. She once stopped a partner mid-sentence during a client presentation because a slide said “approximately $200 million” and she had calculated it was actually $197.3 million. She was right, of course. That is both her superpower and her greatest social challenge. Violet communicates in spreadsheet. When she is happy with an output she says “this is defensible.” When she is not happy she says “this concerns me.” When she is really not happy, she opens a new tab, starts building a sensitivity analysis, and does not speak for forty-five minutes. She also, on rare occasions and usually when nobody expects it, tells jokes. The jokes are always delivered in the same flat, expressionless tone she uses to describe amortization schedules. They are always, inexplicably, hilarious.
John is a Partner and the analytics lead, based in Sydney. He is forty-one, has a PhD in applied mathematics, and speaks in a way that makes you feel slightly less intelligent than you actually are not because he is arrogant, but because he genuinely does not realize that most people have not read the same fourteen papers on predictive modelling that he read last weekend for fun. John drinks herbal tea. He brings his own tea bags. He once explained, unprompted, for eleven minutes, why a particular chart type was epistemologically misleading. He is also, underneath all of that, one of the warmest and most generous people on the team. He will notice if you seem stressed and quietly send you an article about breathing techniques. He is the kind of person who is annoying to be around until you really need him, at which point he is irreplaceable.
Jake is a Director in supply chain and network optimization, based in Melbourne. He is thirty-four, extremely confident, and has the energy of a golden retriever who has just heard the word “walkies.” Jake is the team’s enthusiast. Every idea is “incredible.” Every challenge is “actually a huge opportunity.” Every roadblock is “just a constraint we haven’t solved yet.” People sometimes find this exhausting. The same people, however, will admit that Jake’s relentless optimism has pulled the team out of genuine despair on more than one occasion. Jake also has a habit of drawing on whiteboards. Not just writing drawing. Diagrams, arrows, little stick figures representing stakeholders, cartoon factories to represent network nodes. His whiteboard drawings are, inexplicably, extremely clear. On video calls he holds them up to the camera, which works less well, but he does it with such conviction that people nod along anyway.
David is a Senior Partner in human capital and change management, based in Auckland. He is forty-seven, has grey at his temples, and speaks with the measured cadence of a man who has mediated many uncomfortable conversations including, once, a particularly heated dispute about whether Wellington or Sydney made better flat whites, which he resolved diplomatically by declaring it “context-dependent.” David is the emotional thermostat of the team. When things get heated and with this group, things get heated David will say something like “let’s just make sure we’re all still solving the same problem” and somehow the temperature drops three degrees. His technical skill is deep: organizational design, governance frameworks, change architecture. His personality gift is that he makes everyone feel heard, even when he is about to politely demolish their argument. He also makes the best coffee of anyone on the team, which, in an Australasian context, is an extremely high bar.
Juliane is a Director in KPI design and reporting, based in Sydney. She is thirty-eight, German-Australian, and has the distinction of being the only person on the team who can look at a 400-row data dictionary and feel genuine joy. Juliane is detail-oriented in a way that goes beyond professional habit it is a philosophy. She believes that a poorly defined KPI is a moral failing. She once rewrote an entire reporting framework overnight because someone used the phrase “approximately on track.” She has a dry wit that only reveals itself when you least expect it. In the middle of a tense disagreement about slide structure, she once said, deadpan, “I suggest we put the conclusion on the first slide so people know to leave early if they disagree.” The room was silent for three seconds and then erupted in laughter. Juliane did not smile. She was completely serious.
Mark is a Director. This title sounds more senior than his workload would suggest, because in consulting it is a recognized state of being experienced enough to run workstreams independently, not yet senior enough to stop being given the impossible tasks. Mark is thirty-one, fast, smart, creative, and permanently slightly behind because he keeps being asked to do four things at once. He is based in Sydney. He is the team’s workhorse in the most affectionate sense of the word. He builds the slides. He incorporates the edits. He tracks the versions. He is the reason “Version_FINAL_FINAL_v8_Oliver_edits_USE_THIS_ONE.pptx” eventually becomes a real document. He has been known to work through the night with noise-cancelling headphones and an expression of focused serenity that the rest of the team finds both admirable and mildly terrifying.
Session One: “We Need to Understand What We’re Actually Responding To”
The first session was on a Wednesday morning nine AM Sydney time, which Oliver had confirmed was also seven AM Auckland time only after Violet sent a single-word reply to the calendar invite that said “timezone?” It was the most passive-aggressive single word Oliver had ever received, and he had been in consulting for twenty-two years.
The room smelled like coffee and dry-erase markers, which is the official scent of consulting urgency. The Sydney team was in the office. The Auckland team was on screen. Jake was dialling in from Melbourne on his laptop, propped against what appeared to be a kitchen splashback.
Oliver opened by putting the RFP on the screen. “Right,” he said. “Tamian. Seven hundred million in savings. Six workstreams. Fifteen slides. Fourteen days. Any questions?”
“Yes,” said Violet immediately, from the screen. “The $700 million is that net or gross? Have they confirmed the baseline? Because if the baseline isn’t locked, the number is”
“We don’t know yet,” said Oliver. “That’s part of what we need to address.”
Violet wrote something in her notebook. Her expression, even through a video call, suggested she would be addressing this again.
Jake stood up visibly, even on camera and held a whiteboard up to his laptop. He had drawn a large circle with “TAMIAN” in the middle and six spokes coming off it. “Okay so,” he said, uncapping his marker enthusiastically, “if you think of the business as a wheel”
“It’s not a wheel,” said Juliane.
“No, but metaphorically”
“Metaphors in RFP responses concern me,” said Violet.
“This isn’t the response, this is just for us”
“I know, but once Jake draws it, it ends up in the deck.”
Jake looked wounded. Oliver looked like he was already calculating how many more days like this he had ahead of him.
The mood in the room and on screen was tense in the specific way that happens when smart people are tired and under pressure and have not yet agreed on anything. It was at this exact moment that Violet looked up from her notebook, apparently for no reason, and said, in the same tone she used to describe discount rates:
“I was thinking about this team this morning. We remind me of a story. A luxury mental institution two patients having fun by the pool. One falls in and can’t swim. The other jumps in and saves him. The next day, the director calls the rescuer in: ‘You saved a patient from drowning. Unfortunately, that same evening he was found hanged in his room.’ The rescuer nods and says: ‘Well of course I hung him up to dry.’”
There was a pause of about two seconds. Then the room and the video call erupted. Jake laughed so hard he dropped his marker off camera and spent thirty seconds retrieving it. John looked startled, then delighted. David shook his head slowly with a wide smile. Mark made a sound that was somewhere between a laugh and a cough. Oliver just stared at the screen at Violet.
Violet had returned to her notebook. She did not smile. She turned a page.
“Right,” said Oliver, when the laughter subsided. “Anyway. The connectedness of workstreams.”
And the session continued, noticeably warmer than it had started.
David, who had been quietly off-camera making coffee in the Auckland office kitchen, reappeared and said: “I think what Jake is trying to do is useful frame the six workstreams as connected rather than parallel. That’s actually one of the central messages we need to land with Tamian. They’ve been treating these as six separate problems. We’re saying it’s one integrated challenge.”
There was a pause. Jake pointed at the camera with his marker. “That. Exactly that. That’s what I was drawing.”
“You drew a wheel,” said Juliane.
“A connected wheel.”
John, who had been reading something on his laptop, looked up. “The connectedness point is critical from an analytics standpoint. If you baseline each workstream independently, you miss the cross-functional interdependencies. The cost profile of the network, for instance, is directly downstream of the working capital model. You can’t optimize one without constraining the other.” He paused. “I have a paper on this, if anyone”
“Not right now,” said Oliver, kindly.
The first session produced three things: alignment on the core message (connected, integrated, cross-functional), a rough structure for the fifteen slides, and a shared agreement that the $700 million target needed to be handled carefully referenced confidently but not committed to without caveats. Violet got that last point through by building a two-minute argument so airtight that no one even tried to challenge it. Jake drew four more diagrams. Two of them were actually good. Mark wrote everything down and color-coded it before anyone else had closed their laptops.
Lesson One, quietly absorbed: Before you write a single slide, align on the message you are trying to leave in the client’s mind. One clear idea, repeated across the deck in different forms, is more powerful than six separate ideas competing for attention.
Session Two: “The Content Is Good. The Story Is Not.”
Three days later. Mark had built a draft deck. Fifteen slides, all content populated, all formatted consistently. He sent it the night before with a message that said: “First draft. Please be kind. I haven’t slept.”
Nobody was entirely kind, but they were constructive, which is the consulting version of kind.
The second session started at nine in the morning Sydney time confirmed in the calendar invite this time, with the Auckland equivalent noted in brackets, because Oliver had learned and by nine-fifteen, it was already eventful.
“Slide three,” said Juliane, “says the client should expect ‘significant improvements in operational efficiency.’ What does significant mean? What does operational efficiency mean? This is a feeling, not a KPI.”
“It’s an intro slide,” said Jake. “It’s supposed to inspire.”
“I am not inspired by vague language. I am concerned by it.”
“You’re always concerned.”
“Yes. That is my job.”
Oliver stepped in. “Juliane’s right that we need to be specific. Jake’s also right that slide three is an orientation slide, not a data slide. Can we find language that is both directional and specific without making it feel like a contract?”
Violet, without looking up from her laptop, said: “You could say ‘targeted improvements across six value levers, anchored to the client’s stated $700 million opportunity.’ That’s specific, it references their own language, and it doesn’t overcommit.”
Silence.
“That’s actually perfect,” said David.
“I know,” said Violet.
Mark typed it immediately. You could hear the click of the keyboard like a small victory.
The bigger debate came on slide seven, which was the roadmap slide the one that showed how the fourteen-week engagement would unfold. Jake had drawn it as a linear timeline. Juliane wanted it as a two-phase framework. John wanted it to show data dependencies. David wanted it to show the human journey how the client’s team would feel at each stage. Oliver wanted all of these things simultaneously, on one slide.
“Oliver,” said Mark, carefully, “I can’t fit a linear timeline, two phases, data dependencies, and an emotional journey curve on one slide without it looking like a fever dream.”
“What if we use a really small font?”
“No,” said everyone, simultaneously.
What followed was a forty-minute negotiation that felt, at times, like a UN Security Council session about a PowerPoint slide. Jake drew three versions on his whiteboard and held them up to the camera one at a time, rotating each one slowly like a contestant on a game show. Juliane critiqued all three. John wrote a note to himself about a data flow diagram he wanted to build. David mediated. Violet said nothing until minute thirty-eight, at which point she said, “What if the two phases are the headline, the timeline is the body, and the data and governance threads are shown as running tracks beneath it? Like a subway map.”
Everyone stared at their screens, at each other, at the ceiling.
“That works,” said John.
“Obviously,” said Violet.
Mark built it in twenty minutes. It was the best slide in the deck.
Lesson Two, painfully earned: The story comes before the content. If you cannot explain, in one sentence, what a slide is for, the slide is not ready to be designed. Also: the person who says the least in the first thirty minutes of a debate often has the best answer.
Session Three: “We Need to Talk About the Team Slide”
By day eight, the deck was in good shape. Content was sharp. The story was clean. The roadmap slide was legitimately impressive. There was, however, one unresolved problem.
The team slide.
Oliver had put everyone’s names and titles on a slide. Managing Partner, Senior Partners, Partner, Directors it looked appropriately senior. It was, however, lacking one thing that the RFP had specifically asked for: evidence of Tamian-relevant experience at a senior level. Tamian operated across sheep stations in New Zealand’s South Island and chemical processing plants in Western Australia. That is, to put it gently, a specific combination.
“We need people on this slide who have done something like this before, for a company like Tamian,” said Oliver. “Agriculture. Chemicals. Trans-Tasman. Transformation at scale.”
“Define ‘like Tamian,’” said John.
“Large. Complex. Australasian. Regulated.”
“I have a project I can reference,” said Jake. “We did a network optimization for a chemicals distributor in Queensland.”
“How big?” asked Violet.
“Medium-large.”
“Define medium-large.”
“…Medium.”
“Jake.”
“It was medium! But it was very well executed.”
David, who had been quiet, said gently: “I think the challenge here isn’t the size of the credentials it’s how we frame them. The client isn’t looking for a perfect match. They’re looking for pattern recognition. We need to show that we understand what happens when transformations of this scale go wrong, and that we’ve seen it enough times to prevent it.” He paused. “That’s a different slide than ‘here are our big logos.’”
Oliver pointed at the camera. “Write that down. That’s the intro paragraph for the team section.”
“I’ll write it,” said Mark, who had long since accepted that his job included writing things other people said out loud.
The funnier part of the session was the debate about photos. The firm’s standard was to include headshots. Juliane’s headshot was professional and immaculate. John’s headshot was from 2019, before he grew a beard. Jake’s headshot made him look, in Violet’s words, “like someone who is about to try to sell me a timeshare in the Gold Coast.” Jake was offended. Jake was also, privately, aware that she had a point.
Oliver’s headshot was fine, but he was wearing a tie in it, and the firm had recently moved away from ties in client materials because it apparently “signalled hierarchy.” Oliver spent four minutes explaining that he liked hierarchy, which made David laugh so hard he had to go off camera.
Mark updated all the photos. Jake submitted a new one taken on his phone in the Melbourne office kitchen. Violet said it was better. Jake said thank you. Violet did not respond, because she was already on the next issue.
Lesson Three, with a side of humility: Credentials matter less than pattern recognition. Clients don’t need you to have done exactly their project before. They need to believe you understand the terrain well enough to navigate theirs. Put the insight first, and let the logos support it not the other way around.
Session Four: “The Night Before”
Day thirteen. The deck was due the following afternoon at four o’clock New Zealand time which Oliver had again failed to specify until Violet asked, in what the team had come to call her “timezone voice,” which was the same as her normal voice but marginally cooler. Mark had already converted it to every relevant time zone and put it in the footer of his working document, because Mark anticipated these things now.
Nobody slept particularly well.
Mark, bless him, had been up until two in the morning incorporating a set of edits that had arrived in his inbox at eleven-fifteen PM from Oliver, who had apparently been reading the deck in bed in his Sydney apartment and had thoughts. The edits were not small. Two slides had been restructured. The introductory letter had been rewritten. The team slide now had a new framing paragraph, courtesy of David, who had sent it via voice note at eleven-forty-five Auckland time because he was “too tired to type.” This meant it was nine-forty-five Sydney time, which Mark discovered only when he checked the timestamp and quietly accepted his fate.
The morning session started with everyone slightly fragile.
“Before we begin,” said David, appearing on screen with two coffees one for himself, one presumably for Violet off-camera “I want to say something. We’ve been at this for almost two weeks. The work is genuinely good. I mean that. Not ‘good for the time we had’ just good. So let’s be proud of that while we do the final review.”
There was a brief silence. Jake said “that’s beautiful, David.” Juliane said “let’s begin.” Violet nodded, which for Violet was the emotional equivalent of a standing ovation.
They went through the deck slide by slide.
Slide one: the cover. Clean, good logo treatment, crisp. Fine.
Slide two: the introductory letter. Oliver read it out loud. It was, genuinely, well-written. It told Tamian that the team had spent time reading not just the RFP but also Tamian’s annual report, their investor day materials, and their most recent earnings call transcript. That the $700 million target was ambitious but achievable. That the firm was prepared to invest not just expertise but real resources specifically, a funding commitment for an analytics and tooling layer that no other firm was likely to match. Oliver looked up after reading it. “This is a good letter,” he said.
“I wrote it,” said Mark.
“I know. It’s a good letter.”
Slide five, however, caused a late problem. It was the value creation hypotheses slide the one that laid out five areas where Tamian was most likely to find savings, based on publicly available information and industry knowledge. Juliane had flagged a phrasing issue: one of the hypotheses said the company had “likely underinvested in procurement discipline,” which was, technically, a reasonable hypothesis, but also, technically, an accusation.
“We can’t tell them they’ve been bad at procurement,” said Juliane.
“We’re not saying bad,” said Jake. “We’re saying there’s opportunity.”
“‘Underinvested in discipline’ is not a neutral phrase.”
“What would you say?”
Juliane thought for exactly four seconds. “‘Procurement capabilities that have historically prioritized speed over structural cost efficiency, consistent with a high-growth phase, now offer significant optimization potential as the company enters a value-creation phase.’”
Everyone looked at their screens.
“That says the same thing,” said Jake.
“It says the same thing without implying they were asleep at the wheel.”
“That’s a lot of words.”
“Precision takes words, Jake.”
Jake wrote it down. Mark updated the slide. Oliver said “Juliane, you’re a genius.” Juliane said “I know.”
The last real debate was about the final slide. Every consulting deck ends with something a “why us” slide, a call to action, a closing thought. Oliver wanted something bold. Jake wanted something visual. Violet wanted something quantified. John wanted something methodologically coherent. David wanted something human. Juliane wanted something precise.
They had seven different ideas for the last slide.
Oliver rubbed his temples. The session had been going in circles for twelve minutes the particular kind of circles that happen when everyone is right about something slightly different. The energy was drooping. Mark had quietly stopped typing and was staring at his screen with the expression of a man watching a traffic jam from a helicopter, able to see the solution but unable to reach it.
It was then that Violet set down her pen, looked at nobody in particular, and said:
“This reminds me of a man completely out of his mind who brings a friend home for the first time. He walks him through the apartment. ‘This is my living room. This is my kitchen. This is my terrace. This is the view.’ Then he walks into the bedroom and finds his wife in bed with another man. He looks at the situation for a moment and says: ‘This is my bed. This is my wife. And that… that’s me.’ He turns to his friend and says: ‘See? My apartment is absolutely wild.’”
The call went silent. Then Jake’s shoulders started shaking. Then David made a noise that was somewhere between a laugh and a gasp. Then John serious, measured, herbal-tea John put his face in his hands and laughed until his tea went cold.
Oliver looked at the screen. “Was that about us?”
“It was about the slide,” said Violet. “We’ve been staring at it so long we’ve forgotten what we were trying to say. We’re describing our own apartment and calling it wild.” She picked up her pen. “The last slide should say one thing: we understand your ambition, we’re ready to start, and here is the first thing we will do together. Everything else is furniture.”
Silence.
“That’s the slide,” said Oliver quietly.
“Obviously,” said Violet.
Mark built it in fifteen minutes. It had three elements: a one-line restatement of Tamian’s transformation ambition, a single sentence about the team’s commitment, and a proposed next-step framing an “orientation session” that the team would offer within the first week of being selected, to jointly pressure-test the approach with the client’s leadership across both the New Zealand and Australian operations. That last element was Jake’s idea. Everyone agreed it was good. Jake tried not to look too pleased with himself. He mostly failed.
By noon Sydney time which Mark had helpfully confirmed was two PM Auckland time and ten AM in Perth, where nobody was but it felt important to note the deck was done.
Oliver sent it for internal review. Two people responded with feedback. Oliver read both sets of feedback, incorporated one change (a typo on slide nine), and filed the other feedback under “received,” which is consulting language for “thank you but no.”
At three-forty-five PM New Zealand time fifteen minutes before the deadline Mark uploaded the final document to the submission portal. He refreshed the page three times to make sure it had gone through. Then he sent a message to the group chat that said simply: “Submitted.”
Oliver replied: “Well done, all of you.”
Violet replied: “The numbers are defensible.”
David replied: “I’m proud of this team.”
Jake replied: a gif of a golden retriever jumping into a swimming pool.
John replied: “I have already begun thinking about what we would do differently. I’ll send a note.”
Juliane replied: “The KPI framework on slide eleven was excellent.”
Nobody pointed out that she had written the KPI framework herself.
Epilogue: What They Learned
Two weeks later, Tamian’s procurement team called from their Auckland head office, at a time that worked for everyone, because they were considerate that way to say the firm had been shortlisted. Three weeks after that, they called again to say the firm had won. The call came on a Tuesday, which redeemed Tuesdays somewhat.
Oliver told the team over a celebratory call that lasted twenty-two minutes. Jake whooped. David said “wonderful.” Violet said “now the real work begins,” which was both a buzzkill and entirely correct. John asked if they would be open to implementing an analytics layer in week two rather than week four, given certain data readiness assumptions. Mark made a note.
But in the days after the win, the team did something they rarely did: they talked honestly about what had worked and what hadn’t. Oliver had asked each of them to send him a short note. What follows is a synthesis of what they said, rendered here without names, because some of it was painfully self-aware.
What They Learned About Responding to an RFP
One: Read the client, not just the document. The RFP was fifteen pages. Tamian’s annual report was eighty pages. Their last investor day deck was forty. The team that reads only the RFP delivers a generic response. The team that reads the business delivers a perspective. Tamian noticed. They said so in the debrief.
Two: Lead with a point of view, not a methodology. Every firm responding to this RFP had a methodology. What differentiated this team was the working hypotheses the five value-creation areas they had named, with enough specificity to feel real. Clients don’t want to be told how you work. They want to know what you think about their problem.
Three: The story matters more than the slides. They spent nearly as much time arguing about structure and flow as they did building content. That was not wasted time. A deck that is beautifully structured but whose story doesn’t land is a deck that doesn’t win. The client told them, in the debrief, that the roadmap slide the subway map, Violet’s idea was the one that had made the partner say “okay, these people understand the terrain.”
Four: The fifteen-slide constraint was a gift. Being forced to fit everything into fifteen slides forced ruthless prioritization. Every slide had to earn its place. The moments when they tried to put two things on one slide were the moments the story got muddy. The moments when someone said “cut it” were, in retrospect, almost always right.
Five: Credentials follow insight. The team had good credentials, but not the most obvious ones for this sector. What they realized slowly, and a little painfully was that the way they talked about the credentials mattered more than the credentials themselves. Leading with what they’d learned, what they’d seen go wrong, what patterns they recognized that was more compelling than a logo farm.
What They Learned About Collaborating Across a Team Like This
One: Every personality type in the room is a feature, not a bug. The precisionist (Violet) stops you from publishing numbers that will embarrass you. The enthusiast (Jake) stops the team from becoming so cautious that nothing is interesting. The mediator (David) stops things from getting personal when they feel like they’re becoming personal. The analyst (John) stops you from making arguments that sound good but fall apart under scrutiny. The specialist (Juliane) stops vague language from hiding behind big words. The workhorse (Mark) makes all of it real. Remove any one of them and the output is weaker.
Two: The person who speaks least in a debate often has the best answer. This was observed three times during the two weeks. Twice it was Violet. Once it was Juliane. In each case, they had been waiting for the noise to settle before they offered the solution. Lesson: resist the urge to fill silence. The silence is sometimes where the answer is forming.
Three: Conflict about the work is healthy. Conflict about people is not. There were several moments particularly around the team slide, the credentials, and the last slide where the debate could have turned personal. It didn’t, largely because David kept redirecting it. The question “are we still solving the same problem?” is more useful in those moments than any argument about who is right.
Four: Name the decision-maker early. For the first week, every debate ended in a draw because everyone had equal standing to hold a position. In the second week, Oliver made it explicit: on story decisions, he had final call. On numbers, Violet had final call. On structure, it was collective, with Mark’s judgment as tiebreaker. That clarity alone accelerated things enormously. Ambiguous authority is the silent killer of collaborative work.
Five: Sort out the time zones on day one. This one was added by three people independently, without coordination, which tells you everything you need to know.
Six: Celebrate the small wins. The team that never celebrates is the team that burns out. The moment Mark sent “submitted” was a small win. The moment Violet said “the numbers are defensible” was, in her language, an enormous compliment. The moment David said “I’m proud of this team” mattered. Jake’s swimming pool gif mattered. These things are not soft add-ons to serious work. They are the glue that makes people want to do the work again next time.
Final Word
Somewhere in a Tamian office Auckland, as it turned out, though the Sydney team had assumed it would be Sydney, which was a whole other conversation a managing director printed the deck and read it again before the first kick-off call. She turned to her colleague and said: “These people actually thought about our business.” Her colleague nodded. “You can tell.” She put it down. “Good,” she said. “Let’s see if they can deliver.”
Back in Sydney, Oliver was already pacing in front of a new whiteboard. There was a new RFP on the screen. The carpet in front of the whiteboard was about to get shorter.
In Auckland, Violet had already opened a spreadsheet.
In Melbourne, Jake had already uncapped a marker.
David was making coffee.
John was reading a paper.
Juliane was drafting a KPI framework.
Mark was taking notes and had already added the client’s time zone to his calendar settings.
They were ready.
End.
Leave a Reply