It only takes one person to hurt a team

 One of the realities of teams is that it takes only one individual who is not in alignment with the rest of the team to significantly impact the unity of the team. This can be a result of any number of issues. For instance, they:

• may not be in agreement with the direction of the team or organization
• do not pull their own weight in terms of productivity and results
• may have attitudes that are counterproductive to a healthy team: cynicism, sarcasm, lack of trust, or some other unhelpful attitude
• may like to do their own thing and are not committed to working as a productive team member
• may have Emotional Intelligence (EQ) issues that disrupt the health of the team
• may not be teachable or coachable
• may be very smart and successful but will not cooperate with others
• may be a team leader who does not know how to lead

Here is the reality. It takes only one member of the team (paid or volunteer) to pull down the rest of the team and take a huge emotional toll on the other team members.  All of this hurts the overall missional effectiveness of the organization and creates discouragement among team members.

Ministries often ignore these situations in the name of "grace." We hope they will go away, but they rarely do without intentional and direct intervention. When we do not resolve these negative behaviors, we unfairly punish the rest of the team, who must live with the unhealth of one member, and we hurt the missional effectiveness of the organization.

If you have a situation where a team member is not in sync and is hurting the team, consider these options.

Provide very direct and immediate feedback in person and follow up in writing indicating the problems and the necessary changes that are necessary if they are to continue to play a role on the team and in the ministry. Be direct, honest, and defining. Indirect communication is unlikely to work in these situations.

Establish time parameters in which the issues must be resolved, or they will be placed on a probationary status. If they need additional coaching during this time, provide it and always give honest, direct feedback verbally and in writing.

If there is not adequate progress, place the individual on a probationary status (in writing - always document) with the understanding that if there is no appropriate resolution, they will not be able to continue on the team or with the organization.

Be willing to let them go and transition them out of the organization if they do not meet the requirements of the probationary period.

Your willingness as a leader to take appropriate steps in cases like this sends a powerful message to the rest of your team that you care about their health and the health of the organization. When one does not take these steps, the opposite message is sent - and clearly read that our organization does not take health seriously. Other staff have reason to be unhappy if unhealthy, emotionally unwell, or unproductive team members are left in place. What it says to the rest of the team is that they are not valued. Lack of action also fuels cynicism toward leadership and their unwillingness to deal with situations that are at odds with organizational values.

The emotional and energy toll that is paid for allowing an unhealthy team member to continue is higher than we realize until the issue has been resolved and we finally realize the price we paid. Don't allow one individual to pull the rest of the team down.

responses to change

 Many are familiar with the bell curve that describes how people respond to change: innovators; early adapters; middle adapters; late adopters, and laggards. In my experience in the change process, I have another set of suggested categories to watch for. Where individuals are on this continuum from change resistors to evangelists for change makes a great difference when you are considering them for leadership positions either on staff or a board.

Resisters. Like the laggards on the bell curve, these are people who will actively resist change because they are simply wired that way. This is the individual who told me, "T.J., you can bring whatever change you want to the organization but don't expect me to do anything different." No rationale is going to change the mind of a resister. This does not mean they are bad people. It does mean that they don't do change, and you cannot have them in a place of leadership - ever!

Protectors. The protector is also highly resistant to change but for another reason. They believe in the status quo, the way things have been done in the past, and they will actively try to protect "what is" rather than embrace "what could be." This was the individual who told me and many others that the changes I was bringing to the organization I was leading at the time that I was destroying the organization. 

Cynics. This group is simply cynical about change unless the proposed change is their idea. They tend to view change as "the flavor of the month" and are often vocal about their opinion. Cynics generally don't trust leaders, so proposals brought by leaders are quickly discounted.

Loyal followers. These individuals have a deep commitment to the organization and team. They accept change if there is a good rationale for it. These staff say, "Just tell me which direction we are going, and I will go with you." 

Idealists. This is an interesting group with an upside and a downside regarding change. When creating change, one inevitably creates a gap between what is and what should be. Idealists are highly impatient to get to what should be and believe we should be there now. On the upside, they want the change. On the downside, they can become highly critical that we have not arrived. Thus on any given day, they can be either an ally or a critic.

Realists. This group is supportive of change, realizes that it will take time and process, and is generally comfortable with that process. They are helpful in realistically figuring out how to get there and can live with the tension of what is and what should be.

Change agents. These individuals not only support proposed changes but will be active agents in helping the organization get there. They are your front lines in speaking a new language, setting a new course, and helping redesign philosophy and strategy.

Evangelists. These are the champions of change who publicly and privately live the change out, help others understand and get there and advocate for the new direction.

In my experience, it is the realists, change agents, and evangelists who will help drive change, while the resisters, protectors, and cynics will actively undermine change. Loyal followers and idealists will go with you but will not drive change. 

Think about the implications of these eight ways that people respond to change regarding who you hire, who you put into leadership, and who you ask to serve on a board. One church leader, after hearing these descriptions, aptly commented, "no wonder so many boards are stuck." He is right. Resisters, protectors, and cynics must be managed but beware of allowing them into leadership positions and influence! 

Further, when you are considering someone for a leadership position, it will be the realists, change agents, and evangelists who will help you get to where you need to go. Don't put someone in leadership who will not actively help you move forward and who is not change-friendly.