Focusing on the “Problem” Person
“Everything would be fine if it weren’t for [fill in the blank].”Â
How often have you heard such a statement in an association? This person could be a rank-and-file member, someone on the Board, or a staff person at any level. Whoever they are, they are definitely a problem. Too often, they are defined as the problem.
As such, the solutions associations develop in response tend to be focused on that individual “problem person,” but this too often makes matters worse. While it is true that there are individuals whose behavior or attitude can negatively impact the performance of an organization, it is rarely a case of simple cause and effect. Organizations are complex systems, and looking only at the problem person leaves out too many other important factors, so solutions that focus on the problem person usually fall short. As quality guru W. Edwards Deming said, “defects are always a sign of system failure.”Â
Consider three typical responses to problem people.
Termination
The obvious solution to a problem is to get rid of it. For staff, this means termination. If they are volunteers, it’s a bit trickier, but let’s be honest”â€there are ways to leverage the volunteer system to ensure that certain people do not volunteer any more. While in some cases, termination takes care of the problem behavior, in too many cases it does not”â€the problem behavior pops up in the form of a new individual. Problem people are often reflecting a frustration in the system. While it seems like it is one person’s personality (and that certainly would play a role), as long as the root frustration in the system is not addressed, new problem people are bound to emerge.
Write a policy
If you are afraid to get rid of the problem person, then the next means of control to which you can turn is policy. If you don’t like the behavior of someone, then write (or enforce) a policy that outlaws that behavior. A common example of this is when one or two staff people are perceived to be abusing flex time or not putting in enough hours, and suddenly the entire staff is then forced to punch in using a time clock. While that policy may convince your problem person to put in more hours, it also generates many new problems from the people who now feel like they are not trusted or have to waste time on bureaucratic details instead of getting their work done.
Train everyone
Similar to the policy solution, providing training to everyone in the areas where the “problem person” is perceived to be deficient is also a common solution. If people have trouble communicating with the problem person, then provide the Board with communication skills training. While this solution probably won’t hurt (who couldn’t use a brush up on communication skills?), it rarely solves the problem. The problem person usually sees through the ploy and gets defensive about the whole training, and the others often see it as a waste of time (“I already know how to communicate”â€the problem is him!”Â). The real value of the communication training is often lost.
So what’s the solution? First of all, the solution is not simple. These three typical solutions oversimplify the situation. There is nothing wrong with firing people, writing and enforcing policies, or providing training, but do not fall into the trap of using blunt instruments like these to solve complex and delicate problems. Second, problems require direct attention, and all three of these solutions involve avoidance. Even the seemingly direct answer of termination implies a long period of avoiding the problem person as the behaviors were developing. Confronting and dealing directly with both the problems (and the problem people) on a continuous basis will often resolve the problems before they escalate.






This is meant as constructive feedback: The last paragraph contrasts too much with the rest of the post to be useful. Overall, I understand the spirit of this premise, but I’m on the fence about it. If a behavior is not acceptable why wouldn’t you take the time to communicate about the behavior to everyone via a policy or education? Communicating about expectations and unacceptable behaviors up front helps both those who are trying to enforce the norms as well as those who are expected to comply with them.
In my experience, the memos to all are reinforcing existing policy for one person by pushing the policy into everyone’s face. This can create a really negative environment just because a manager/executive is not willing to confront the individual who is out of line. It is simple cowardice and abdication of responsibility. Not that I feel strongly about it.
If most people are out of line with an expected behavior, then you can have productive org wide interventions (if senior staff get in front as leaders of it).
I think a both/and approach is best.
First, let me say that I always appreciate your Feedback Ben, and it is always constructive. Thanks for reading and commenting!
I thought the “both/and” WAS the premise in the last paragraph, so I’ll try to make that a bit clearer in the next iteration. There’s a difference in intent when communicating a policy as an ongoing part of clarity around expectations (a good thing) and telling everyone about a policy in order to change one person’s behavior. It’s really about being clear on your purpose and taking multiple paths to solve the problem.
Dealing effectively with such problems is usually not easy. Training everybody makes sense if everybody needs training. But if the process is not well designed for the system (which includes all the people working there) maybe the correct action is to adjust the process to find a more effective process. Then test out the new process and adopt it and train people once it is improved. If certain people need extra training on certain point then do that.
It is easy to say but difficult to do but what is needed is a focus on continuous improvement which involves standardizing processes (policy and training) but always with a focus on improvement. To often the focus is really on forcing this or that person into some process which is not very good.
It is difficult to address this completely here. I explore Deming’s ideas on Management here: http://curiouscat.com/deming/ and in my Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog