Nice post on why bias for action is not always the best idea. The example of a goal keeper taking action just to not be hated by fans for losing the game when in fact staying put could be the better play is something we can relate to in everyday life. Say a child comes crying to their parent saying they got hurt in their head and are in a lot of pain. The parent would likely bias for action and it that probably the right thing to do no matter if the child is exaggerating a bit to get attention - neglecting the situation could have bad consequences. The same child when they push their parent to yes to something they are reluctant to allow, will likely meet some stalling tactic - no action basically. It would not be a good move to say yes (and lose authority) or say no (be intractable where the facts may prove that to be a bad decision in the end). At work similar things apply.
When dealing with a person who is not a good team player, sometimes it's best to ignore them while everyone else is brought in to collaborate. Once the team starts getting wins, getting recognized and such, the person who refused to participate may want in - chances are they will work harder to make up for lost time. You will get the outcomes you need and want without having done anything. Pushing this person ahead of time to be part of the team will only be met with resistance and likely demoralize those who are already on-board. This scenario has played out in my experience so many times that I no longer worry about the one or two difficult players - its all a matter of time and patience.
Comments