The atmosphere has deteriorated in the team and everyone is digging in

A conflict has settled into the team: what do the exchanges show?

Reconstructed case: the exchanges, dates and participants are fictional data, written to show the structure of the document. No real person, team or company is described here.

The record of facts

Period covered: 02/03/2026 to 01/06/2026 · 2148 messages · 7 participants

Distribution of message volume — 49 % (two participants)
Share of messages sent by each participant out of the 2,148 messages retained: D.M. 612, M.K. 447, T.B. 331, N.R. 274, D.M. (2) 188, A.C. 96, S.P. 41. System messages excluded.
Exits from a thread or channel, dated — 2 exits
Threads where the report holder appears and then no longer appears, the thread continuing afterwards over at least ten messages. Two exits recorded: “catalogue redesign” thread on 9 April (31 messages afterwards), “planning V2” thread on 18 May (12 messages afterwards).
Share of messages addressed to a group — 82 %
Share of messages addressed to the channel or to a thread with at least three recipients, relative to all the messages retained.
Back-to-back turns in a group channel — 18 %
Share of turns taken up by another participant less than 40 seconds after the previous one without taking up its subject, out of all the turns in the channel.
Wording repeated identically — 14 occurrences
Strings of more than six words repeated word for word at least three times, across all senders, polite formulas excluded. The most frequent: “we already talked about this last week”, 14 occurrences.
Messages received outside the working hours retained — 38 messages
Count of the messages in the channel whose timestamp falls outside the 09:00–18:30 range declared by the report holder, over the period covered.
Messages carrying an urgency marker — 47 messages
Messages containing at least one explicit urgency marker (“urgent”, “by tonight”, “before tomorrow morning”, “immediately”), over the period covered.

This document is an automatically generated record of facts, based on the exchanges you provided. It is neither an expert assessment, nor legal advice, nor a legal characterisation. Workplace harassment, discrimination and similar characterisations are legal determinations that belong to the competent authorities. For any action, contact your labour inspectorate, occupational physician, staff representative or a lawyer. The measures shown here cover only the exchanges submitted: they do not reflect the full context of your situation.

The report

What is observed

The channel contains 2,148 messages over thirteen weeks; 49% of them are sent by two of the seven participants.
The “catalogue redesign” thread was reopened 14 times between 17 March and 22 May, on the same arbitration question.
Out of 23 decisions announced in the channel, 9 appear without any prior exchange in the corresponding thread.
N.R. was removed from 2 threads over the period; in both cases the thread then continues, over 31 and 12 messages.
Chained turns — a participant taking the floor less than 40 seconds after another without taking up their subject — account for 18% of turns.
Out of the 12 sequences where a disagreement is expressed, 8 end without a closing message; 4 end with an accepted rewording.

What this indicates

Several sequences show a concentration of the flow on two participants: the other five together send 51% of the messages, one of them 2%.
The chronology indicates an arbitration question that keeps coming back without being settled: fourteen reopenings of the same thread over ten weeks.
Several sequences show that the exchanges bear less on the subject of the disagreement than on the way it was worded: 7 of the 12 sequences examined.
The distribution of announcements indicates two parallel decision circuits within the same channel, without the exchanges provided allowing the reason for this to be established.

Leads to check

One lead to check would be a distribution of responsibilities that has not been restated since a change of organisation: the reopenings all bear on who decides, never on what is to be decided.
One lead to check would be the existence of a second channel, outside the corpus provided, where part of the arbitration is carried out: 9 decisions appear without any prior exchange in the corresponding thread.

Who writes to whom, who is copied in, who drops out of a thread: in a team, the situation is read in the circuits → Analyse our exchanges