Who in Your Team Have You Labelled Difficult?
You are ready to approve a proposal when a colleague asks for more information. They want to understand the assumptions behind the timeline and whether the team has the capacity to deliver. You feel your patience thinning. Why do they always make things complicated?
Before they have finished, you are explaining why the team needs to move forward. Their concern remains unresolved, but your impression of them is reinforced.
Most leaders can think of someone whose approach they find frustrating. The question is whether you are still assessing that person’s contribution fairly. Different does not mean difficult, yet once a label takes hold, it can influence whose advice you seek and who gets considered for greater responsibility.
Some behaviours do need to be addressed. But first, you need to establish what is happening and how your own expectations affect what you see.
When your preferences become the standard
If you value speed, you may associate quick decisions with competence. Someone who needs more information may appear hesitant, even when their questions reveal a weakness in the plan. If you favour detailed preparation, you may underestimate a colleague who can exercise sound judgement before every fact is available.
Your preferences become a leadership problem when they determine whose contribution you take seriously.
In the project discussion, the colleague asking about capacity may be protecting the team from an unrealistic commitment. They may also be requesting detail that is unnecessary at this stage. You cannot establish which without hearing the concern and assessing its relevance.
If you routinely dismiss their questions, you may eventually receive fewer of them. The meeting might move faster, while the risks they would have raised remain unexamined.
What is each person paying attention to?
Insights Discovery provides a useful language for exploring how people approach the same situation differently.
In this project meeting, Fiery Red energy may bring attention to the result and the urgency of moving forward. Cool Blue energy may focus on the evidence supporting the timeline. Sunshine Yellow energy may help the team recognise possibilities, while Earth Green energy may draw attention to the support people will need to deliver.
We all draw on all four colour energies. Understanding these preferences can help a team appreciate contributions that might otherwise cause frustration. It also gives people a way to discuss what they need from one another.
However, working preferences are only part of the explanation. The colleague asking about capacity may be responsible for allocating resources. They may know about commitments you have not considered. You still need to understand the substance of their concern.
A useful response would be: “Which assumption concerns you, and how could it affect delivery?” That question gives you something concrete to assess.
Separate the behaviour from your interpretation
“They are holding things up” is a conclusion. “They asked us to review the resource allocation before approving the timeline” describes what happened.
Separating the two helps you determine whether there is a problem with the proposal, the process or the person’s conduct.
Had the supporting information been shared before the meeting? Did everyone know that a decision was required? Was there a clear opportunity to raise concerns earlier? These questions may reveal expectations that you assumed were understood but had never made explicit.
There may still be a behaviour to address. Perhaps the colleague repeatedly reopens decisions without new evidence or fails to review information provided in advance. If so, discuss that specific pattern and its impact.
You can require preparation and timely input while remaining willing to hear a legitimate concern. Clear expectations make accountability fairer.
What does being questioned mean to you?
Sometimes the intensity of your response tells you something about your own leadership identity.
If you believe a capable leader should always have the answer, a question about your proposal may feel exposing. You may begin defending your credibility before assessing whether the concern has merit.
My SIPS framework helps leaders work through these moments and choose a deliberate response.
Sovereignty asks what stance you need to take to exercise your authority effectively. In this situation, that means remaining grounded long enough to hear the concern and taking responsibility for the decision without needing immediate agreement.
Identity asks what belief about leadership you need to reconsider. Can you regard yourself as a credible leader while acknowledging that a colleague has identified something you missed? What would change if making a sound decision mattered more to your self-concept than appearing certain?
Power Intelligence brings attention to how authority affects the exchange. Would you respond differently if your own executive raised the same concern? Does this colleague have responsibility for delivery without sufficient influence over the commitments being made?
Strategic Positioning turns that understanding into action. You might ask for a focused capacity check before approval, adjust the timeline or explain why the available evidence supports proceeding. The response follows from what you have learned.
Give the team a better way to work together
Resolving this meeting is useful. Preventing the same tension from recurring requires an agreement about how the team will make decisions.
For future proposals, you could establish what information must be circulated in advance and when material concerns should be raised. Clarify who makes the final decision and how any unresolved risk will be recorded and managed.
The colleague who needs detail now knows what preparation to expect. The colleague who wants momentum knows when a decision will be made. Both remain responsible for contributing within the agreed process.
As the leader, you need to uphold that agreement too. If you regularly introduce major decisions without notice, you should expect questions that take time to answer.
Think again about the person you have labelled difficult. What specific behaviour needs a conversation? What concern deserves closer attention? Your next interaction is an opportunity to replace a broad judgement with a clearer understanding of what the work requires.
If your team keeps returning to the same tensions despite repeated conversations, it may be time to examine how you work together more deliberately.
Book a Discovery session to discuss your team’s challenges and explore how I can support you through Insights Discovery based facilitation and team coaching.
Comments