Capella University Project Management Roundtable

November 23rd, 2009    Loran Walker  

The Troublesome Team Member

There always seems to be at least one member in a project team who "acts up" during the life of the project. This person is usually the one who is hard to replace because of their expertise in the field. How should a project manager handle this type of situation?

Your thoughts and ideas are welcome!

Delicious | Digg This! | Technorati

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “The Troublesome Team Member”

1. newhere Says:
   December 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm

   GREAT question.
   I am dealing with a troublesome team member that is a very experienced SME (with no pmp training or understanding) who has been assigned a leadership role on a project that interacts with mine. The team is pushing back on working with him and I’m starting to avoid his calls too, since we usually spend considerable amounts of time arguing about whether or not project management is a “real” discipline, or addressing the person’s many technical issues using the tools established by the PMO.

   My plan has been to use the situational leadership approach to separate the root cause of the issues (ability vs. willingness). Next I need to describe the issue to him in these terms and ask some questions to verify, then address the gap by suggesting the agreement I need to get. If issues continue, they need to be addressed immediately and with an appropriately grave approach (referring to the previous conversation and agreements not being kept, being honest but tactful about how specifically the behaviour is an obstacle to the project, documenting the conversation, and discussing before and after with my own supervisor and/or the sponsor).

   If the problem persists beyond that, then I will raise the situation further with the sponsor and my director as a significant obstacle to the success of the project, summarize the risks of allowing the situation to continue, and discuss the options for intervention or corrective action. From there, it is their call. I will continue to be firm in any agreements we have made about our communication, such as time limits on unscheduled phone conversations, or transferring an argument to the issue log for future resolution when it’s obvious we’re not making progress.

   Any ideas/issues/feedback? I’ve just spent some time thinking about it and sometimes writing it out like this helps me clarify The main issue I see arising is that the person doesn’t seem to have any respect for the discipline of project managementm which bothers me and I get sidetracked into conversations about why pm is important rather than sticking to the real issue. How do I keep it on track when the blustering, egotistical, condescending comments start flying at me?

2. Dr. Loran Walker Says:
   January 24th, 2010 at 7:33 am

   There are different ways of approach an employee in this type of scenario. This is only my opinion based on what you’ve said but I would simple confront the person with the idea that mutual respect is needed in order for any conversation to take place.

   The three approaches can be avoidance of the issue, smoothing over the issue or confronting the issue. In this case the first two do not seem to be a good choice.

   What I have seen in other scenarios is the person who is creating the issues is removed from the team in order for the project to move forward.

   – Loran

3. Stan Emelander Says:
   February 15th, 2010 at 9:52 am

   I am encouraged that newhere has determined a leadership philosophy to follow. That is a good start. I prefer the transactional/transformational model. Using this perspective, laissez faire leadership, only intervening when there is a problem is not an option, as Dr. Walker commented. That leaves you with active transaction and transformation. If you do not have any rewards to offer, transaction is out of the picture, leaving transformation. Transformation involves sharing your goals and vision for the project in a manner that is attractive. It focuses on goals, what can be accomplished, rather than negatives.

   It seems newhere could rightly say that he/she does not understand what troublesome’s goals are. If troublesome’s goal is project success, then there is a basis for moving ahead. If it is centered on fighting the organization’s methodology, then there is a problem. Whether the disagreement is cognitive (issues based) or affective (personality based) can be important as well. The situation reads as if cognitive conflict is bleeding over to affective problems, affecting the team. Whether PM is a bona-fide profession is beside the point – the organization is using PM methods, and following standards (benchmarks) is important.

   We all like to be able to handle problems and risks with our own resources, but in dealing with a disruptive peer I think that presenting the situation to higher-level managers is good option. My experience has been that the downsides from removal are less than trying to accommodate a disruptive person.

4. Dr. Loran Walker Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 11:14 am

   Excellent insights! I agree that the final action may be to remove the disruptive person so the project may move forward. However, that action may have to be acted upon sooner, especially if the team’s performance is suffering.

   Another idea may be to intervene with the person with peers or a management team emphasizing that the success of the project is everyone’s concern and from that common ground move forward.

   Timing and patience is everything in these types of situations…

Leave a Reply

Let us know what you think. All comments will be reviewed prior to going live. Comments that are profane or obscene, or unrelated to the topic of the post will not be published.