Link to the slovenian version of the article
1. No crisis, no movement!
Recently, during a meeting with a client, I encountered a situation that is increasingly common in organizations today. A team is split across two locations, with no real connections, no sense of community, and no clear team rhythm. Communication is minimal, collaboration limited, and the bridges between different parts of the system practically do not exist.
In the middle stands a leader – formally present, but in reality, absent. His focus is directed outward, toward sales and the market. The owner, even more distant, holds a clear and profitable vision. The company is performing well. There is no pressure, no crisis, no external threat that would unite the team. And that is precisely the problem.
At first glance, nothing seems wrong. Yet an external, growth-oriented observer quickly notices a significant amount of untapped potential. The team is in its comfort zone. Ambition for development and true teamwork is low. The leader lacks awareness of his leadership skill gaps – and there is nothing to suggest that this will change anytime soon.
The question that naturally arises is: what can we actually do if the leader is not going to change and the system is functioning well enough that it does not create pressure for change?
2. Where is flow and who is really responsible?
One of the quiet frustrations in the described situation is the fact that nothing and no one is in flow. And that matters. Not because flow is a “nice-sounding” concept, but because all of us – leaders and team members alike – genuinely want to work in a state where our work feels meaningful, fluid, productive, energetically sustainable, and where we can end the day with a sense of satisfaction.
Yet the situation described in this real-life example simply does not allow for that.
Flow is not an individual “hack.” It is largely dependent on the state of the system. It emerges where basic conditions are in place: a clear direction, a sense of connection, appropriate challenges, feedback, and psychological safety. When these elements are missing, flow cannot arise – regardless of how motivated an individual might be.
Within the ThinkZoe framework, flow in such cases is understood as the result of balance:
- between the individual and the system,
- between the leader’s responsibility and the team’s responsibility,
- between what we aspire to and what we actually live.
In the described case, the system functions “well enough” to deliver business success, but not internal quality of work. And here a paradox appears: because there is no crisis, there is no pressure for change, while dissatisfaction remains quietly present. No one is truly satisfied, yet no one has enough energy or influence to shift the situation.
From a mindset perspective, we can draw on ancient Stoic philosophy in such cases. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius reminded us that inner strength is built by clearly distinguishing between:
- what lies within our sphere of influence, where it makes sense to invest energy, change, and development,
- and what lies outside our control, which we consciously let go of.
In such systems, leaders often suffer because they try – or are expected – to carry full responsibility for the flow of the entire system, without having real leverage for change. Team members, on the other hand, often wait for someone else to create the conditions in which they could work differently.
The truth is uncomfortable, yet liberating:
if no one takes responsibility for flow, no one will experience it.
And that is precisely why ThinkZoe does not speak of flow as a goal, but as a consequence of a mature relationship to responsibility – both at the level of leadership and at the level of the individual.
3. What can be done by the leadership and what by team members?
A) Practical guidance for leaders (and how to mentally unload)
The first step for a leader is not to “do more,” but to stop carrying everything.
• Mental unloading:
A leader is not a therapist, an entertainer, or the sole source of energy in the team. Their role is to create the framework – not to fill every gap. When a leader accepts that they cannot force engagement, a significant mental burden is already lifted.
• Clear expectations, not solving things for others:
A leader can clearly articulate what kind of collaboration is expected, as well as the standards for communication and accountability. What they cannot do is live those standards on behalf of the team.
• System instead of constant interventions:
A regular rhythm of activities (short check-ins, retrospectives, daily and weekly feedback protocols) is far more effective than occasional “motivational” interventions. A well-designed system carries the team even when the leader is not physically present.
• Focus on influence:
Leaders should consciously distinguish between what they can improve (structure, clarity, vision) and what they need to let go of (individual motivation, personal growth, inner resistance).
B) Practical guidance for team members: what it really means to “walk through the door”
If a leader opens the door, someone still has to walk through it.
• Collective ambition:
A team can – even without a perfect leader – shape a shared agreement on how it wants to work and what kind of ways of working will support more flow. This is not rebellion; it is maturity.
• Taking micro-responsibility:
Don’t wait for ideal conditions. Start where you have influence: with clearer communication, better preparation, and greater presence in collaboration.
• Active initiative, not silent criticism:
If you see potential, speak it out. Flow begins with energy, not with waiting. Initiative involves risk, but it is also the only way for the situation to start moving.
• Relationship with yourself:
Taking care of yourself also means not remaining in the role of a victim of the system. If you want more meaning, connection, or challenge, you need to bring part of that into the space yourself.
Final thought
Flow is not a gift from the leader to the team. Nor is it something an individual simply “earns.” It is the result of each person in the system taking responsibility for their part – and letting go of what they cannot control.
When this happens, real shifts begin to occur even in systems that appear calm on the surface.
Jaka Oman
Author of the ThinkZoe concept
