Harvard Business Publishing

I agree with Marshall on many points. I work in a team of four and there is this one person who alienates herself from the group. It sometimes is not easy to talk and explain the situation to her. We have talked to her in the past citing the various occasions. Explaining/ talking about the issues is useful only when he/she is willing to accept other persons views and work towards changing the situation. Firing a person is easier in a work atmosphere but not in a study working group where we have to continue to work in group. Also this person cannot work or complete a project on her own. So it is a lot of heartburn and negative energy with no other option but to let the group continue its work till the completion of the term when you will start working with a different group.

Keep it about *behavior*. Don't be concerned about "attitude" or "poisoning" or "being difficult". Worry about interrupting others, not returning messages, negative body language, insulting tone of voice, etc.

Negative and/or destructive behavior has to be addressed specifically, immediately, every time, directly *to the individual* who is behaving badly. If it can be done privately, all the better.

If Biff is berating colleagues in meetings, general admonishments to the whole group ("everybody, be nice to each other") is useless. Specifically telling Biff that berating his colleagues is not acceptable, and clarifying it with specific behaviors if he doesn't understand, is far more likely to get improvements. Then notice when he improves.

As to the "disconnected" situation .. the best solution is to force a connection. Talk to Biff more, regularly and frequently, on a personal as well as professional level.

Marshall,
I am reminded of my dear father's advice "Don't do anything dumb". Turns out I have done quite a few dumb things, but not because I didn't believe in his sage words - I just didn't know how to recognize the dumbness of my actions. It was good advice, but a little too generic to be useful. He is now 96 and gives me that same advice every time i see him. I work hard to follow it, but can still fail.

Managers (this one included) are useful to the degree that they are able to remove "roadblocks" for their team. The roadblock inherent in this issue is more likely to be that the person doesn't KNOW HOW to do act as the bullets describe, not that she doesn't know that she SHOULD.

Leaders can elevate the performance of their teams very quickly if they are "teaching what they preach" and are well-advised to follow the bullets ONLY IF they understand how to teach people the behavior they are asking for. Leaders not only need to understand that you SHOULD "Encourage each team member to be positive and focused in their replies to other team members" but to be able to teach HOW to be positive and focused, what it looks like, how to tell if the other person is getting the message, and how to correct things if they aren't getting it.

In my experience, advising someone to be "a more attentive listener" is akin to advising them to "work smarter, not harder"-it has meaning only in the immediate context and is not extensible to the next conversation. Instructing becomes a reflective activity of describing "what they should have done (or said)" and can be very frustrating. A leader that is well prepared will conduct instruction that is a proactive activity, teaching the basic flow of a business conversation, dealing with difficult topics, understanding how emotions play into conversation, and setting norms of conversation (external source - http://pathfindercomm.blogspot.com).

I am off my soapbox now. Did I do anything dumb?

Hi Marshall,

I don't know, this article seems too vague. The content and tone seem to dance around a lot of unidentified topics.

For instance, what is the actual role or duties of this person? Is she a driver, an administrator, a seller, and organizer, how is she contributing to the organization?

Without a delegation of specific roles, I do not see how individual behavior applies. Almost sounds like the "water cooler" phenomenon.

If she is downright obnoxious or outwardly mean, then she will need to be sent away on a weekend retreat for behavioral modification (a warning with helpful ideas of how she can become more effective at interaction).

If, on the other hand, and speaking hypothetically, this identified individual just happens to be very creative, then the team needs to accept it over a period of time - if the team cannot accept it, then maybe it is the team's issue, not the identified individual.

Often times, whether in the clinical world or corporate world, the identified patient or the identified employee is actually not the problem. In fact, the rest of the team or the rest of the family may be fabricating lies and spreading fallacious rumors in an effort to alienate and undermine the identified individual.

As rational individuals, we need to be aware and wary of excessively collectivist behavior.

An individual who has the courage to break away from the group, tends to be the person who has self-directed motives and wants to get things done.

Gathering around the water cooler for socioemotional support is appropriate so long as it is not done in excess. However, too much water-coolering naturally breeds suspicion and mistrust.

As you said, this is a time to stay focused and get more work done. If we don't get more work done, this economy will likely continue to decline.

"I fear prolonged stagnation, therefore I do."

When a leader's output is less, it is a signal for other's to step up to the plate.

You did it again, you inspired more thought, and subsequently more action.

Riju-In your case, you might do well just give number one a try: Work on improving the team behavior of every team member. In this way, the one person you are having problems with won't feel 'singled out' by you.
Tom-Thank you for your insight!
Gregg-No--nothing dumb. Thank you!
Matthew-Thank you! I am glad to have inspired more thought. Your point about "the rest of the team" possibly being part of the problem is valid. This is one of the reasons why it is so important to work on improving the team behavior of every team member rather than singling out just one person.

Dear Marshall,
Thanks for sharing your views on a relevant topic. Many a times I have behaved in a similar manner and the strength of feedback and team building made me realise to 'Stop being a jerk'. I have learned few new things reading the article and the comments.

In my early days as a new general manager - my own style was a challengers' and I would take a confrontative approach of confronting the employee straight in a one-on-one and later counselling about their behaviour. This was not very appropriate as it would later turn out that the person had problems in early childhood, surroundings where they lived, the society, the negative impact of it all coupled with personal problems which needed patient handling and supportive atmosphere rather than straight confrontation and disciplining.

My team has experienced the first approach suggested by you when we had a similar situation. A Team building program was conducted wherein the Trainer (Ashok George - Ex Xerox) assessed our primary team player styles - Collaborator, Communicator, Contributor and Challenger in their positive and negative dimension and shared attributes displayed by each one thru various team games and exercises. In the end feedback session which was the final intervention each member committed to follow a disciplined formal/formal approach first before agreeing with more informal or personal approach. This took care of the extremely negative challenger who realised that he/she could be the 'team breaker' and did not want to be one.

Another method used once was labelled as 'Akrasia'( just some jargon) a conscience team game and we discussed:
1. Things we are supposed to do BUT do not do.
2. Things we are not supposed to do BUT do.
This intervention in an interactive program brings out the behavioural traits in the team members and the realisation suddenly dawns 'Oh No!' and ' I thought I was always RIGHT' leading to buy-in and commitment process taking over leading to better team behaviours.

Thanks again for a great article.

An excellent post and a genuine real life problem.
Some times this sort of attitude are noticed with people with
high caliber and high intellect who really think they can not work in teams.

People with high scientific and creative mind ,like very good coders,writers, journalist like to work alone they don't like interference. They have a superiority complex.This complex helps them to excel in work.

They are very productive if they work alone,rather their productivity increases when left alone.

Your last line solution
"if she is a critical individual contributor who can function well without team interaction, have her work alone "
will work wonders for the above type of candidate.

With Warm Regards,

Debashish Bramha

Marshall,

Great topic and suggestions. I love this kind of dilemma. I think it comes down to simple sociology. Outside of gross social misconduct like pitting team members against one another or being subversive which is unacceptable, it is essential to recognize everyone's role on the team. A negative Nelly is actually an asset. They can challenge your ideas, point out problems and help to make the whole concept better. Addressing the issues as a team rather than individually always seems best since that way nothing was said in confidence and there can be no ill will. Also- recognizing everyone's strengths and repositioning weaknesses as new strengths can also be highly effective.

In a true team environment, team members will not stand for someone that is not pulling their weight or is being disruptive to "their" team. This type of person becomes an outsider, and for good reason. The productive and cohesive team members have too much invested in achieving the team's goals to allow this person to impede them. The conversation is unfortunate but pretty straight forward- "you have alienated yourself from your teammates and you need to earn your way back in, or if you decide not to, then move on." As suggested in another post, moving on could mean moving to another position in the organization or moving on to another organization depending upon the circumstances. I think that the person in charge needs to make sure that this a team and not a department.

Hi Marshall,

While there is nothing wrong with your suggestions, my experience is that if there is a sore thumb among the group, that the group can see it. I think all of us need to watch the one-bad-apple syndrome where we make everyone do something because of the bad apple. As long as the 'group' exercise is really needed by the group, then go ahead; otherwise, the group may resent the additional workload activities, which gives the bad apple more misery-loves-company ammunition from which to wreak havoc.

Be sure the person is a bad apple! Is there something else going on? Is this person being ostracized for being somewhat different? Is the team make-up appropriate are you truly aware of each of their talent areas - are they?

Sometimes the "bad apple" is an person being illuminated by inappropriate team management. Let's be sure other team members are not working, sometimes together, to have this person appear to be a bad apple because of ulterior motives of these other team members.

This is good information. However, my problem is dealing with a team leader who cannot get along with the team and whom no one likes. He does his job well outside of properly managing people. How do you deal with a manager who is supposed to be a part of the team, who is supposed to motivate the team, and who is supposed to help the team work more efficiently, but is the one person who brings the entire team down. Do you fire him?

Hi Marshall and everyone else,

Such a common situation, and I suspect that more of this kind of disconnection will be happening right now -- people are frightened, and that makes many of us behave in unexpected and isolating ways.

It sounds as though the team member may indeed need specific behavior suggestions that the manager offers, in order of priority, a few at a time -- people don't respond well to generalities, or to being overloaded with behavior requests. Pick the one or two behavior changes that will give you the biggest bang for the buck; offer specific examples of when the team member exhibited bad behavior, and the specific changes you would like to see.

But also -- any manager who is this disconnected from an employee is not doing her job as a manager, especially if (as seems clear from the letter), the relationship has gone from good to disconnected over the course of a year. It's the manager's responsibility to get on top of that.

I believe in authenticity as a fundamental value of good managers. If I were in this manager's situation (given what I know about it), I'd sit down with the team member and say, "Sally, I'm concerned about our relationship. I feel that we had a good relationship a year ago, but we've become disconnected from each other. I worry that this is impacting my ability to be a good manager to you and give you the support you need to work effectively on the team. What do you think?"

And then see what happens. And deal with it. It may be that the manager needs to make changes too. Or it may be that the manager will see more clearly that Sally is no longer a good fit for the team. In any case, the manager ought not to assume that she has all the facts until she knows what's going on in Sally's head.

Jay-Thank you for your honest comments and tips!
Debashish-You make some nteresting observations. Thank you!
Allen, Jeff-You are both hitting the nail on the head. This is definitely a managerial/team challenge.

Marshall's suggestions are, of course, excellent ones that have the ability to remedy the poor situation. I recently wrote a blog entry myself on this topic and highlighted some pointers from Michael Stallard. While not trying to relieve anyone from responsibility for these situations, I firmly believe that leaders can act in such ways to foster loyalty and openness. It simply takes a commitment to a desire to inspire loyalty, retention and a positive work environment.

If interested, my piece can be read here:

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/10/01/lessons-in-loyalty/

Good advice! Addressing a behavioral issue from one that affects an entire team should be handled so that somewhere along the line there's a silver lining to be discovered. I would also add that if the "problem" associate can't seem to shake that "bad apple attitude" and all the proper documentation has been administered, then it probably is time to part separate ways. I wouldn't want to transfer a problem otherwise.

Patty
New York City

Nina-Thank you for your comments and blog article. It's an interesting piece.
Patty-Well said. Thank you!

Alright,

I have to jump back in this acrimonious debate - this topic is just great for igniting thought.

And I would like to call out Mary McKnight for her words of wisdom in saying that a "Negative Nelly" may actually be an asset. While I agree on that point, I do not believe it boils down to simple sociology.

Does anyone ever wonder why their are protons, neutrons, and electrons in this world? And why protons have positive charges and why electrons have negative charges? And why certain combinations of each make up different elements on the periodic table?

All of us have different distributions of positive, negative, and neutral charges inside of us - come on people - let's get a grip here! We are all interdependent on how we exchange our unique charges - we regulate and deregulate one another in a perpetual cycle.

Isn't this what makes life such a mixed bag of tricks and worth living?

Does anyone watch Seinfeld? Does anyone know one of the main reasons this sitcom was and continues to be so successful? It was written and created by 2 divergent people - Larry David (Mr. Pessimistic) and Jerry Seinfeld (Mr. Brightside).

A great team is a full and mix bag of tricks.

We need organizers, we need jokers, we need creative people, we need a whole multitude of people to get a job done and make this world go round.

Okay - I'm done!

Great post, and great discussion!
I'd suggest taking one additional step backward, and getting some clarity on what the manager believes to be the essential elements of teamwork. For some managers, it's staff being friendly to each other while executing work within the bounds of assigned roles; for others, it's staff taking shared responsibility for achieving a positive result, and calling out potential problems as soon as they're spotted. Does everyone understand and agree on how teamwork is defined in this organization? And, if this is a manager with a broader vision of teamwork, is there a comfortable place for someone who challenges others' assumptions, and flags potential problems? If not, there's often value in assigning someone the role of devil's advocate. In the situation described, I would not first assign that role to the person who's seen as troublesome, but to the person who's seen as the strongest team member, so that the input of the person in that role is taken seriously.

Marshall,
That's a two-edged sword, when you suggested, "If she has this bad attitude, tell her that a change in behavior is critically important" as some research (M. buckingham, M. Seligman, etc.) shows that causes a defensive reaction and may act worse. Alternatively, stand close, look directly at her and praise the specific behavior you want to reinforce -whenever it happens.

Matthew-Thank you for looking at the bright side. I've thoroughly enjoyed your post.
Susan-I agree with you. Great post! Great discussion!

This is a wonderful approach. In addition to this or perhaps in advance of it, would be to have all team members participate in a visioning exercise to articulate the end result they want to achieve. From there, an appreciative inquest into what constitutes excellent team dynamics/function can be initiated that will build consensus of best practices in team work. Values are embedded in such discussions. Another effective strategy might be to explore how personal style can impact progress either positively or negatively.

A great thing to consider as a team leader is what exactly you want more of from this person. Not less of as in less of a bad attitude but more of, as it more quality interactions that foster good will. Chances are it is already alive and well in some aspect of this person's character. As the team leader your job then becomes one of tracking and fanning the quality you desire.

Yael-I agree with you! Thank you for your comments.

Kare-Thank you for your comment!

These are really great suggestions. One thing that I remember from "What Got You Here Won't Get You There" is that people who have destructive behaviors often unaware of them, unaware of their impact on group dynamics, or aware of them but believe they are helpful. The last of these comes often comes from the correlation-causation error: people who are successful and have destructive behaviors often erroneously link the two together. Another tool I have encountered is the "360 survey" concept. In this case, if the problem person is falling for one of these cognitive fallacies, a 360 survey would give them honest feedback that could help them increase their awareness and understand the impact of their behaviors. This may be another approach for people to try. Also, do you have a recommendation for how to approach this if there truly is only one problem person? Isn't there a chance that they will see through it and become offended or distrustful?

Jason-Thank you for your comments. If there truly is one problem person and that person doesn't want to change, then don't waste your time. However, I've found that it is rare that one person is entirely at fault.

As a new manager, I find this topic very interesting. I was on the "other side" of the fence for almost 5 1/2 years, where I noticed my manager making generalities to the team instead of focusing on the one person known to cause problems. By addressing everyone, it made the rest of us feel like she was avoiding the real issue. In the end, nothing changed, and the rest of us continued to pick up the slack of the one "bad apple", which made almost everyone crabby.

I have come to find that without two main ingredients, teamwork cannot be achieved: communication and compassion. Many problems can be avoided if people just learn to talk to each other. More information is better than no information. Yes, it can get frustrating to hear the same thing 5 times, but it's even more frustrating to NOT hear something pertinent to your role.

Compassion is best defined by the golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Somewhere between kindergarten and our freshman year of high school, this gets lost, and it's not often that it gets picked up again, mostly because the recognition one feels they "deserve" is not granted.

In my last role, and I'm sure in my new one, both communication and compassion were necessary. Neither were done well at my last job, but I hope to inspire my new teammates to use them daily.

Thanks again for your insight on this topic. I look forward to reading more of your work.

Heather-I love your two main ingredients, compassion and communication. Thank you for sharing your ideas with me!