In many organizations, micro-teams form organically—small, bonded groups with shared history, norms, and preferences. Micro-teams are often visible when two teams come together, however it is not rare to experience even in existing teams. They can be signs of people trying to find psychological safety or influence in a space where the team identity is not strong enough. While they offer speed and cohesion, they can also breed silos, tribalism, and misalignment. The leader’s responsibility is not to dismantle relationships, but to understand underlying drivers, re-engineer the social architecture so that primary loyalty shifts back to the broader team. It is often helpful to remember that factions often arise from fundamental human needs and organizational dynamics.
The most common reasons that create teams within teams are
· Perceived Scarcity/Competition: The Zero-Sum Trap
This goes beyond simple competition for resources. It taps into the Zero-Sum Bias – the unconscious belief that one group’s gain must come at another’s expense. When resources (budget, headcount, recognition, promotion opportunities) are seen as finite and unevenly distributed, intergroup hostility emerge and sub-teams form as self-protective units to hoard or fight for perceived necessities, viewing other internal groups as rivals, not partners.
· Lack of Shared Purpose: The Identity Vacuum
If the overarching team’s purpose and identity is not clear, it creates an “identity vacuum.” Without a strong, unifying collective identity, individuals gravitate towards smaller, more intimate sub-groups to fulfil these needs. These smaller “tribes” then create their own micro-purposes and loyalties, often at the expense of the larger whole.
· Comfort & Familiarity: The Cognitive Ease of Homophily Individuals naturally prefer and gravitate towards those similar to them (Homophily). Under pressure, or when faced with complexity, interacting with familiar individuals (who share similar working styles, backgrounds, or perspectives) reduces cognitive load and perceived risk. This comfort, while benign in itself, can inadvertently lead to self-segregation and the formation of exclusive cliques that resist engaging with “outsiders” because it requires more effort and emotional energy.
· Unresolved Historical Grievances: The Lingering Shadow of Past Conflicts Lasting scars can also arise out of unaddressed past conflicts, failed projects, or leadership changes that left deep emotional wounds. Collective negative experiences or long-held grudges (e.g., a controversial re-organization, a blame-filled project failure) can create divisions which get embedded over a period of time.
A leader can adopt a number of strategies to realign loyalties and focus energy on the collective objective, transforming isolated groups into interconnected nodes of a unified network.
1. Anchor the Team to a Superordinate Goal
Introduce a bold, shared challenge that no subgroup can solve alone. When a team aligns behind a higher, common cause, identity shifts from “us vs. them” to “all of us vs. it.” This taps into the Common Ingroup Identity Model, which show how shared goals reduce intergroup conflict and elevate collective identity.
Read the full article here.
The core reasons why these “teams within teams” emerge within organizations.