Reflections on Handling Difficult Team Members

I once worked with a team that was, quite frankly, toxic. The same two team members routinely derailed meeting agendas. Eye-rolling was a primary form of communication. Side conversations overtook the official discussion. Most members had disengaged, emotionally checking out while physically present. Trust was nonexistent. This wasn't just unpleasant—it was preventing meaningful work from happening. The transformation began with a deceptively simple intervention: establishing clear community agreements. Not generic "respect each other" platitudes, but specific behavioral norms with concrete descriptions of what they looked like in practice. The team agreed to norms like "Listen to understand," "Speak your truth without blame or judgment," and "Be unattached to outcome." For each norm, we articulated exactly what it looked like in action, providing language and behaviors everyone could recognize. More importantly, we implemented structures to uphold these agreements. A "process observer" role was established, rotating among team members, with the explicit responsibility to name when norms were being upheld or broken during meetings. Initially, this felt awkward. When the process observer first said, "I notice we're interrupting each other, which doesn't align with our agreement to listen fully," the room went silent. But within weeks, team members began to self-regulate, sometimes even catching themselves mid-sentence. Trust didn't build overnight. It grew through consistent small actions that demonstrated reliability and integrity—keeping commitments, following through on tasks, acknowledging mistakes. Meeting time was protected and focused on meaningful work rather than administrative tasks that could be handled via email. The team began to practice active listening techniques, learning to paraphrase each other's ideas before responding. This simple practice dramatically shifted the quality of conversation. One team member later told me, "For the first time, I felt like people were actually trying to understand my perspective rather than waiting for their turn to speak." Six months later, the transformation was remarkable. The same team that once couldn't agree on a meeting agenda was collaboratively designing innovative approaches to their work. Conflicts still emerged, but they were about ideas rather than personalities, and they led to better solutions rather than deeper divisions. The lesson was clear: trust doesn't simply happen through team-building exercises or shared experiences. It must be intentionally cultivated through concrete practices, consistently upheld, and regularly reflected upon. Share one trust-building practice that's worked well in your team experience. P.S. If you’re a leader, I recommend checking out my free challenge: The Resilient Leader: 28 Days to Thrive in Uncertainty  https://lnkd.in/gxBnKQ8n

I once labeled my most challenging team member as "difficult." For months, I tried everything to improve their performance. Nothing worked... until I stopped trying to fix them. The real problem? I was solving the wrong problem. ⋯ The Challenge ⋯  | Before: I saw symptoms, not causes  | After: I discovered what was really happening Most underperforming teammates aren't lazy or difficult. They're misdiagnosed. Every performance gap has a story. And most leaders get that story wrong. I learned this the hard way. What looked like resistance was actually confusion. What seemed like incapability was actually an expectation gap. ---4 Hidden Causes of Underperformance--- ✅ The Clarity Gap – They're not resisting. They're unclear. --Your "obvious" isn't their "obvious" --They can't see the full picture you see ✅ The Skills Mirage – They're not incapable. They're untrained. --You see basic skills. They see complex puzzles. --Every task feels like the first time ✅ The Role Mismatch – They're not failing. They're misplaced. --Their strengths are your needs... for a different role --Success feels like swimming upstream ✅ The System Trap – They're not the problem. Their environment is. --Tools that waste more time than they save --Processes that create more problems than they solve It took me years to recognize these patterns. To see below the surface. Now I see them easily. Here's the reality: Bad performance is a symptom. Not the root issue. The best leaders? They're not performance critics. They're performance detectives. Before your next conversation about performance, ↳ Ask yourself one question: ↳"Am I solving a pattern or fighting a symptom?" Because here's what I've learned: The greatest performance gaps are in our diagnosis, not their delivery. And the most dangerous words in leadership? ↳"They just need to do better." ↳No. They need you to look deeper. Your hardest job as a leader isn't fixing performance. It's unlocking their true potential. ❓ Think of your most challenging team member right now. What might you be missing about their true potential?

Do you have people on your team that don't carry their weight at work? People that are continually "worked around," or seen as an impediment to getting things accomplished. Individuals that we as leaders, allow their behavior. Who's responsible for the challenges these people create? Who owns the problem? Is it them, or is it us? As managers and leaders, we can easily dismiss these team members, believing they’re the problem or they're 'not crucial' to team success, but should we? Is that fair to them or the organization? People who fit this description, the unwanted and uncaring, we'll call them, are often enabled to behave this way because co-workers, managers, and leaders don't want to have the difficult conversation with them. They are left alone, at times, isolated, and minimally productive, which suits them just fine. Every organization has individuals who are tolerated like this, despite having reasonable options for dealing with them. By example, we could: * Find out their challenges and work with them to correct or change behaviors, allowing them to remain in their role, * Move them laterally to another department or position within the organization where they can be more successful, * We could demote them to a lesser position if they lack the skills necessary to perform the role they're currently in, or * If we have no viable option, we can choose to amicably separate from them. First, it takes having a very direct and meaningful (courageous) conversation with them. A two-way, candid discussion can often quickly identify the source of their issues and determine if we've (us or the organization) has played a role in causing the behavior to happen. These conversations require asking open-ended questions, leaving the door open for people to openly explain the issue(s) or challenges they’re dealing with. As an organization, getting to the truth or a better solution is a sound business practice, helping to avoid dramatic change, a possible lawsuit, or an eventual separation from the company. If we believe in and value empathy and self-awareness, we must consider ALL the factors involved when a team member is not engaged. As a leader, failure in anything requires that we examine our role first in why it happened. Why is this important? Because “sometimes the bad things that happen in our lives put us directly on the path to the best things that will ever happen to us,” according to Nicole Reed. Leaders may selfishly lack the courage to have a difficult conversation with any team member in this position, but if they want what’s best for them and the organization, they'll do it anyway. This is what makes them a leader. They take on challenges versus stepping around or over them. Does your organization know how to have "productive" conversations? #underperformance #leadership #employeeengagement #execution

When you’re accountable but not in charge as a PM This is one of the silent struggle of many Project Managers. One of the most persistent challenges we face as PMs(this is also applicable to Scrum) is managing poor #performance on a project team without direct #authority over the individuals involved. Yes, you’re responsible for the outcomes, timelines, budget and deliverables. But the people doing the work report elsewhere.🙃 So what do you do when performance is slipping and the #project is on the line? Here’s how I’ve approached it over time: ✅ Lead with project impact, not personal judgment. Focus on how delays or quality issues affect project dependencies and commitments, not the individual’s shortcomings. → “When the database design is delayed, it holds up development and puts our go-live date at risk.” ✅ Use your PM tools as leverage. ↳Dashboards, status reports, and steering committee updates bring natural accountability. Visibility often drives improvement. ✅ Set clear expectations early. ↳At kickoff, establish deliverable standards, communication norms, and escalation paths. When performance dips, you're not starting from scratch, you're referring back to agreed norms. ✅ Stay connected with functional managers. ↳Check in regularly so that when issues arise, you can raise them with specific impact and evidence. Those relationships make a real difference. ✅ Structure your project around your strengths. ↳Assign critical-path tasks to high-reliability team members. For underperformers, just break work into smaller chunks with more checkpoints and fallback options. ✅ Document consistently. ↳Every missed handoff, scope issue, or conversation gets recorded. Oh yes! This is about protecting the project and enabling functional managers to take informed action. ✅ Use retrospectives wisely. ↳Sometimes team feedback surfaces patterns that direct confrontation doesn’t. Retrospectives can be a powerful tool for collective accountability. At the end of the day, our greatest source of influence is the visibility we have as PMs. We see the full picture, where things connect, where they’re lagging, and what the consequences are. 📍And with that perspective, we can lead without needing the org chart to validate it. Isn't that amazing?? Lol I'd love to hear from you. Ever had to fix performance issues on your project team without formal authority over the person involved? Follow 👉 Benjamina Mbah Acha for insights that help you plan, execute, and deliver projects with confidence.

Being a project manager is more than managing timelines It’s managing strong personalities. Early in my PM career, I thought the hardest part would be the deadlines. But I quickly realized the real challenge was people. The impatient VP who wanted everything yesterday. The team lead who nodded in meetings - then blocked every change. The stakeholder who changed priorities every other day. No Gantt chart could prepare me for that. But over time, I learned this: If you want to lead projects well, you have to learn how to lead people - especially when they’re difficult. Here are proven strategies for handling the toughest stakeholder types: 1️⃣ The “I want it yesterday” stakeholder Set expectations early. Prioritize together. Share trade-offs and use data to ground urgency in reality. 2️⃣ The resistant-to-change stakeholder Involve them early. Show them what’s in it for them. Build trust through small wins and use peer influence. 3️⃣ The stakeholder who angers easily Stay calm. Use neutral language. Prevent surprises with proactive check-ins. And if needed—bring a third party to the table. 4️⃣ The quiet, hesitant stakeholder Follow up 1:1. Give them time and space. Acknowledge their value publicly to build confidence. 5️⃣ The abrasive stakeholder Set boundaries. Redirect to facts. Document everything. And if it crosses the line - escalate quietly with support. 6️⃣ The one who changes priorities constantly Use a formal change process. Show the cost of rework. Create a backlog for future ideas. And revisit priorities in structured meetings. People skills are project skills. Mastering these dynamics is what sets great PMs apart. 🟨 Which stakeholder type challenges you the most? Let’s share strategies below.