With an increase in the usage of work groups within organizations, I have found some individuals still prefer to work by themselves. When placed in a group environment, often times they may not be as productive as they would be on their own or in some scenarios demonstrate resistance and become a disruption to the group’s progress. I was wondering how others have handled such situations or tried to motivate a reluctant employee to become more willing to participate in a work group?

On my teams, I have a one on one conversation with the team member. I ask open ended questions about the team and how they feel things are progressing. I then paint my vision for the team in vivid colors and explain how I think the team can benefit with that person's experience and cooperation as well as the benefits for that person. Ultimately if the person refuses to work as a member of the team or continues to be disruptive, I speak with them again and respectfully part ways. The team working together to achieve the desired goal is more important that holding onto a disruptive member with a bad attitude even if they have more experience.

I like to remind my team members of a quote by Ken Blanchard:
"None of us is as smart as all of us."

Hello AndrewA:

>With an increase in the usage of work groups within organizations, I have found some individuals still prefer to work by themselves.<

Why are they on the team?

>When placed in a group environment, often times they may not be as productive as they would be on their own or in some scenarios demonstrate resistance and become a disruption to the group’s progress.<

This should have been known ahead of time.

>I was wondering how others have handled such situations or tried to motivate a reluctant employee to become more willing to participate in a work group?<

For team members that have a 70% or lower job suitability a transfer to a more suitable position is in order.

AA,

If it is important for productivity that these workers play well with others, make sure you select those that have that capability.

If it is not important for productivity that they work well with others, let them produce in the arena they are the best suited for.

If it is important that they work with others well and that their playground skills are tuned...reward them for team play and put them in the penalty box for when they choose not to.

While it is not necessary to be a tyrant, it IS necessary that the leader make crystal clear that which is important. Measure performance and then reward/recognize/penalize as necessary.

sf,
Boom

You also might need to examine how your groups are put together, and how the personality of group members is being managed.

Often what ends up happening in work groups is that the more direct, outgoing, and urgent members monopolized the table. When you have someone that is naturally a more reserved person - even if they are the member with the most and best experience - they end up frustrated by the communication and can end up going into a shell rather than doing what is best for the group.
This happens far more often than anyone realizes. Your indirect and reserved members end up not feeling like part of the group, they rather feel like someone being herded into concensus when they may have very strong opinions that they just aren't comfortable sharing with the group because of the dynamic.
If you are having individual problems with team members it's not usually going to be because someone is just THAT bad a teammate. Members can be passionate about the work, have ample knowledge and experience, but simply don't mesh. Plenty of the work groups and teams that I consult to have been bouncing between forming and storming for months or years with individuals coming and going from the team. Almost always this problem boils down to personalities and communication styles.



snowsy@gmail.com
www.insightinstitute.com