The passivity of one of the collaborators who is a member of a commercial department causes a borderline situation that is reflected in a climate of tension among his colleagues, who appreciate the lack of cooperation in the team's own functions.
Group performance clearly declines.
The opinion of the company management about this worker is negative, in the sense that he is considered well-off, lacking in stimulus, without initiative and not very cooperative, although it also plays in his favor that the economic results of the who is directly responsible, they have always been good.
Considering the situation, I plan to talk seriously with him, warning him that he must react by integrating himself into the team, favoring communication with his colleagues and he has to play a more dynamic role in his work.
His difficult character makes him not very accessible, the dialogue is tense initially, and I try to explain to him how he sees the situation of the group. Very defensive at all times, he agrees to iron out the rough edges he has with the other teammates.
The next step that I propose is that you value the positive and negative aspects of your work, and your predisposition to participate in the common tasks of the department, highlighting at all times the importance of being the oldest of the group, the value of your experience and of their knowledge of the commercial world, which should be a guide for the team at all times.
A dialogue is established that relaxes, but their opinions are short. I find it hard to make him reflect, and he considers at all times that he carries out his work well, that he cannot do more and that it is the others who fall short in terms of productivity, although he is willing to help them.
I make him see his powers to positively influence others and even to train his own colleagues.
Finally, it is indicated to him that this is not the line of work that is wanted of him and that this message has already been transmitted to him other times. His reaction is not good, and he does not accept the assessment.
After an hour and a half of conversation, I think he reached the following conclusions:
- He is aware of and assumes the need to improve the work environment with his colleagues, and is willing to settle existing differences with them. In addition, the results are good. At no time does he set specific goals for improvement, he only sees "the barrier", and he is not able to go a step further. Despite citing possibilities of solution, it does not reveal a sign of good predisposition.
Three questions to ponder:
- Was the time for the interview the best? In a stressful situation should an ultimatum situation be raised? To what extent is someone's personal results sufficient to justify poor behavior?
Three conclusions to debate:
- Communicating positively makes the other's communication more fluid. Favoring the integration of the other increases responsibility. Self-criticism is essential to find solutions.
