A real-world case study of AI + Science bringing healthcare teams together
There’s a moment every leadership team recognizes, even if they don’t say it out loud.
Meetings feel heavier than they used to. Decisions take longer. Conversations that should be straightforward turn tense or evasive. People start protecting their territory instead of solving problems together. Everyone is working hard, but forward motion slows.
This isn’t dysfunction in the dramatic sense. It’s misalignment. In healthcare environments especially, it’s more common than most leaders want to admit.
We saw this firsthand when a healthcare organization reached out to XBInsight after recognizing a growing divide between its administrative leadership team and its medical executive team. On paper, both groups were strong. Individually, the leaders were capable, experienced, and committed to the organization’s mission. Together, they were struggling.
The issue wasn’t effort. It wasn’t intelligence or intent.
It was how the teams were interacting, communicating, and making decisions under pressure.
The Problem Wasn’t Open Conflict. It Was an Absence of Productive Dialogue.
By the time we entered the conversation, the organization was already feeling the impact.
Administrative leaders and medical executives were operating in silos. Meetings felt guarded. Communication had become transactional rather than collaborative. Decisions were slower, and when they were made, buy-in was uneven. There was frustration on both sides, but very little productive dialogue about why things felt so strained.
What made the situation especially challenging was that no one felt they were the problem. Each group believed they were acting in the organization’s best interest. That belief, while genuine, made it harder to address the underlying dynamics without defensiveness.
Leadership recognized that if these patterns continued, the consequences would extend beyond leadership meetings. Culture, accountability, and organizational performance were all at risk.
That recognition is often the hardest step.
Why We Started With Self-Awareness Before Solutions
When teams are misaligned, the instinct is often to fix communication. Introduce new meeting structures. Clarify decision rights. Rewrite operating norms.
Those steps can help, but they rarely stick unless leaders first understand how their own behaviors contribute to the dynamic. Our work began with individual self-awareness.
XBInsight administered its Executive Leadership Assessment to leaders across both teams. The goal wasn’t to label anyone or assign blame. It was to create a shared, objective language around leadership behavioral indicators, communication styles, and impact.
This is where the AI + Science approach became essential.
AI helps surface patterns across teams. Science ensures those insights are valid, fair, and grounded in how people behave and perform at work. The assessment data gave leaders something many teams lack: a neutral foundation for honest conversation.
When discussions are grounded in data rather than assumptions, defensiveness softens. Leaders are more willing to listen. Curiosity replaces judgment.
That shift set the tone for everything that followed.
Learn more: Explore the full suite of XBInsight products and solutions.
Bringing the Teams Together With Intention
With a shared data foundation in place, we designed a structured, facilitated intervention that brought both leadership teams together in the same room. Not to debate strategy or revisit old decisions, but to focus on how they were working together.
The session centered on communication, respect, and collaboration. Leaders examined how their individual styles showed up in group settings. They explored how different communication preferences were being interpreted, often incorrectly, by colleagues on the other team.
This wasn’t abstract theory. The conversations were grounded in real scenarios leaders were facing day to day.
One of the most powerful moments came when leaders recognized that behaviors they viewed as efficient or decisive were being experienced by others as dismissive or inflexible. Conversely, behaviors intended to be thoughtful or cautious were being interpreted as avoidance or resistance.
Data alone didn’t solve those tensions, but it helped to surface them. Visibility of these tensions made them discussable.
Accountability Had to Become Shared, Not Assigned
Alignment doesn’t last if accountability lives in silos. A critical part of the intervention focused on defining what accountability actually meant for this organization. Not in generic terms, but in observable behaviors leaders agreed to model consistently.
Together, the leadership teams identified the characteristics of a workplace grounded in accountability. They discussed how those behaviors would show up in meetings, decision-making, and follow-through. More importantly, they made joint commitments to uphold those standards.
These commitments weren’t symbolic. They were integrated into individual leadership goals, creating a direct connection between personal behavior and organizational expectations.
Accountability stopped being something enforced from above and became something owned collectively.
Why Follow-Through Matters More Than the Session
One of the most common reasons leadership interventions fail is that they end when the workshop does. We didn’t let that happen.
Post-session meetings were built into the engagement to review progress, reinforce commitments, and address gaps in execution. These follow-ups weren’t punitive. They were practical. Leaders revisited what was working, what felt harder to sustain, and where old habits were trying to resurface.
That continuity mattered. It signaled that alignment wasn’t a one-time event, but an ongoing practice. Over time, leaders began holding themselves and each other accountable in ways that felt constructive rather than confrontational.
What Changed When the Teams Realigned
The shift didn’t happen overnight, but it was unmistakable. Communication became more direct and productive. Conversations that once felt tense became more open. Leaders demonstrated greater empathy for perspectives outside their own functional area. Decision-making accelerated because trust had improved.
Perhaps most importantly, accountability became shared. Leaders took greater ownership of outcomes, not just within their own teams, but across the organization.
Siloed behavior gave way to collaboration. The leadership team moved forward with greater cohesion, better positioned to support the organization’s mission and long-term goals.
This made it possible to restore the conditions that allow strong leaders to perform well together.
What This Means for Your Teams
Most organizations don’t lack capable leaders. They lack clarity around how those leaders interact under pressure.
When teams struggle, it’s rarely because people don’t care. It’s because behaviors, expectations, and communication styles are misaligned in ways that are difficult to see without data.
This is where AI + Science becomes a powerful unifier.
At XBInsight, we’ve seen again and again that when leaders are given validated, objective insight into how they show up and how their teams function, alignment becomes possible. Not forced. Not performative. Real.
If your leadership teams feel stuck, strained, or siloed, it may be time to explore how AI + Science can bring your teams back into alignment and move performance forward with confidence. Contact us to learn more!