“We have a difficult team”: Why that is a label, not a diagnosis
“We have a difficult team.”
It is a phrase I hear regularly from organisations seeking support.
Sometimes it means relationships have broken down. Sometimes performance is poor. Sometimes there is one person whose behaviour is causing concern. In other cases, cliques, factions or tensions with leadership have developed.
The problem is that “difficult team” can mean almost anything.
It describes the organisation’s frustration with the situation, but it does not tell us what is actually happening or why.
And until the problem has been properly understood, it is difficult to know what kind of intervention will help.
What does “difficult” actually mean?
Before recommending any action, I would want to understand the symptoms the organisation is seeing.
For example:
Are people openly arguing or avoiding one another?
Is the team failing to deliver?
Are particular individuals being excluded?
Is there high sickness absence or turnover?
Are people resisting the leader or organisational change?
Have complaints, grievances or allegations been raised?
Are there informal groups that appear to hold disproportionate power?
Do people say they no longer trust one another?
These issues may overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
A team experiencing role confusion and unclear priorities may need stronger structures and leadership routines.
A team with entrenched hostility, unresolved events and harmful behaviour may need a deeper diagnostic and carefully managed culture repair.
The intervention should be determined by the problem, not by what is easiest to purchase or organise.
Why leaders can misdiagnose team problems
Leaders are often given a partial view of what is happening.
They may hear most frequently from the loudest or most distressed individuals. They may have limited visibility of informal conversations and alliances. They may also view the team through the lens of previous incidents, complaints or assumptions about particular personalities.
This does not mean the leader’s view is unimportant. It is essential.
But it is one perspective within a wider system.
To understand a team properly, I usually want to hear from as many people within it as possible, alongside the leader and other relevant stakeholders.
I want to know:
What does each person believe the problem is?
When did things begin to deteriorate?
Which events have shaped the current situation?
What happens when people disagree?
Who is listened to and who is overlooked?
What has leadership already tried?
How did the team respond?
What conditions may be unintentionally sustaining the problem?
Different people may describe the same team in very different ways. Those differences are not an inconvenience to be eliminated. They are valuable diagnostic information.
Resist the urge to intervene too quickly
When a team is struggling, there is understandable pressure to act.
Leaders may feel they need to demonstrate that they are taking the situation seriously. They may organise a workshop, bring in a mediator, restructure responsibilities or issue a reminder about behavioural standards.
Sometimes these actions help.
But acting quickly is not the same as acting effectively.
An intervention based on an incomplete diagnosis can miss the real issue. It can also reinforce people’s belief that leadership does not understand what has been happening.
For example, a communication workshop will have limited impact if people are withholding information because they do not trust one another.
A team-building day is unlikely to repair a conflict involving power, exclusion and unresolved grievances.
A reminder about respectful behaviour will not, by itself, address a system in which harmful behaviour has repeatedly gone unchallenged.
Start with curiosity
The first step in working with a struggling team is not deciding how to fix it.
It is becoming genuinely curious about what is happening.
This requires leaders to avoid settling too quickly on a simple explanation such as:
“They are resistant to change.”
“It is just a personality clash.”
“There are one or two bad apples.”
“The team needs to communicate better.”
Any of these explanations may contain some truth. But they are hypotheses, not conclusions.
A good diagnostic process examines individual behaviour, team relationships, leadership, organisational conditions and the history of the situation.
It allows the organisation to move from a broad label to a much clearer understanding of:
what is happening;
why it is happening;
what continues to sustain it; and
what kind of intervention is most likely to help.
“We have a difficult team” may be the starting point of the conversation.
It should never be the end of the diagnosis.
How I can help
I support organisations to understand what is happening beneath the surface of difficult, fragmented or underperforming teams.
Through independent interviews, psychological analysis and practical recommendations, I help leaders identify whether the team needs stronger foundations, targeted intervention or a deeper culture repair process.
If you are dealing with a team that has become difficult to lead, the first step is to understand the problem properly before deciding how to intervene.
Nicole Williams is an occupational and coaching psychologist specialising in culture repair, team dynamics and psychologically safe workplaces.
Comments