July 18, 2012 at 19:52Group resistances
- From the sandbox
- Tutorial
Many managers in private conversations complain about employees. It seems to be knowledgeable specialists, but the work does not work. Moreover, they often take time from those who still work. Just fire me.
Many parents complain about something similar regarding children. And here it’s impossible to dismiss.
Both employees and children often act in similar ways. The implementation is different, and the types of actions are similar:
Each of these species has its own formal attributes and standard medications.
According to my personal statistics, most IT managers have grown from engineers. From programmers, QA, admins, etc. How does this happen? The best employee is given an assistant to carry out routine tasks. Then the second. Then - trust to train newcomers. So, slowly, a person is acquiring a team. And here it turns out that now the skills needed for work are completely different. That for each person in the team it takes from half an hour to an hour and a half a day to set and test tasks. And that to solve the problem "how to make a project on time, efficiently, and with the available resource" it is very useful to be able to work with the team. And in this case, we will encounter two interesting features of it - group dynamics and group resistances.
It seems that a person does nothing wrong, and seems to behave rationally, but his behavior slows him down.
What might it look like? Let's imagine a meeting at which one of the employees begins to find out in detail the irrelevant details of further work. At the same time, a slight aggression is heard in the intonations, and sarcasm sometimes skips: “Why did you decide that A is better than B?” he asks, "How can a decision be made without the necessary information?" he asks us, and looks at the employees. It seems to be the case, but intuition whispers: “something is wrong here,” and consciousness adds: “there are still a lot of questions in the task list of a higher and more important rank”, “and Agile requires quick planning without detailing long-term plans.” And most importantly, it confuses the sign language of our interlocutor. In other situations, we would say that the employee trolls us.
Outwardly, group resistance can look different: disputes, emotional outbursts, petty nitpicking, apologies, assaults, clownish presentations, substantive and auxiliary proposals, complaints and questions. The main thing is that they impede the continuation of work, distract from the topic, create emotions that are not related to the theme of the audience. For example: we are about to hand over the project tomorrow, and they are about the economic condition of Greece.
There are four types of group resistance - attracting attention, the struggle for power, revenge and helplessness. Sometimes they allocate more, but, in our opinion, four is enough for effective work.
The person seems to be actively helping, making approving comments and making them out loud. Sometimes he asks questions, and when you start answering a question, you understand that he is not interested in the answer, and the question was from the category of banal. Sometimes it takes you away from the topic and switches your attention to something of your own or yourself. At meetings, he asks questions that could be resolved personally. Interrupts. Specifies. Slightly trollite - gently, without much aggression. Jokes. It begins to say that the essence of what is said comes after the 20th word. He rustles a bag, opens a window, closes a door, blinds, adjusts the air conditioning. It often goes through the discussion center. Twirls something in his hands, plays with gadgets, from time to time loudly dropping and apologizing.
Often, such behavior causes irritation and a desire to shut up, plant, tie hands, etc., very often, such behavior keeps the attention of the team on the “irritant”. Discussion time is delayed, thoughts are scattered and we understand that something needs to be done.
It makes sense to ignore a small attracting attention (for example: someone threw a paper airplane). If the situation repeats (the employee came to the next meeting with a parachute and with pilot's glasses and with 54 airplanes, which he threw after each speaker’s proposal), it’s better to change tactics. The escalation in attracting attention hints that our attention will continue to attract more and more aggressive methods. This is reminiscent of a child’s behavior - if they do not pay attention to your cry, then they will pay attention to a broken vase.
Ignoring can be enhanced by a technique called ratification in hypnosis.
The essence of the technique is to reinforce the desired behavior and not pay attention to the behavior we do not need. Therefore, we give attention not when the “irritant” attracts attention, but when the employee’s behavior is consistent with the goals of the team. For example, he listens attentively or offers sensible suggestions - here we give him attention in a way he loves. For example: ask his opinion, listen carefully, say a compliment. If attention is attracted by "children's" methods - we respond adequately, but minimally.
There are many ways here:
You can talk, and find out why the employee thinks so, or why he objects, the main thing is only to listen carefully to the answer without interrupting. If a question or objection was said to attract attention, then, often, the objection is removed, and the questioner himself answers it. The main thing is to listen.
You can indirectly attract attention and verbally. Give a name, tell a story from life related to him (if it suits the situation), recall at the meeting the successful decisions of this person.
There is a person, he can even be a leader in this team (or cannot, but he wants to prove that he can). He does not quite like the current, appointed leader (or he considers himself more competent). Many things can be done better and more correctly, and he knows how and is ready to fight. Moreover, outwardly this struggle may not look aggressive. Small sentences "in essence", constant amendments, "to make it clearer," a way of doing things in one's own way and inciting others. Or maybe a direct challenge to the leader of his actions, a call under his own banner of the other participants, the distribution of instructions to employees. It can start disputes about architecture, technical solutions, and where to go to the corporate party. He can play in public, he can push populist decisions.
Objected, did not complete the task? Sometimes the best thing you can do is not get involved. The struggle for power is expensive (in relation to the goals of the team), if the case is isolated - it is better to pretend that they did not notice anything. But if you plan to work with the team for a long time, then it makes sense to talk with the "irritant" "one on one. Without the presence of the group, such a conversation will be easier and cheaper in time. The task of such communication is to show that this behavior does not suit you, rather than stir up a conflict. Therefore you can use the “i-message” technique. And say in the format “when you said that you wouldn’t do work with such an illiterate task setting, I felt irritated and angry, I wanted to pay more attention to the fact that at meetings can be done, not that which is bad.
Rarely when is the best move. However, it is often used. If you enter the battle, try to avoid conflicts. For example, it makes sense to use less conflictogens. In this case, one can use both the Socratic dialogue and the constructive ultimatum.
It also happens. One more argument not to engage in a fight, you can easily lose all respect from the team.
Extreme measure. If in the eyes of the team this was not a necessity, then this is a huge minus in karma. Accordingly, if we drive out - it is necessary to clearly and clearly convey the idea "for what and what it threatens in the future." However, let this option be Plan B
And if you push off from the essence of the employee’s request, even if expressed in an uncomfortable form for us, then the person wants power. It is quite possible that we will be able to let him prove himself from the position of leader, even if of a small sector. For example: to educate beginners, to establish a testing process, to provide effective meetings (short, with a written resume, etc.), organize the writing of articles in a corporate blog or on a habr, etc.
Do you want power? No problem, can you choose, will we go by option A or by option B? The main thing is that both options suit us. You can choose in what order to fix these bugs. But you need to fix it now. Of course, you can prioritize when overtime is on Saturday or Friday night. Just fix should be by Monday morning.
Another technique that can be used here is to propose a choice from a list of three positions. The preferred position is last for us. The first position for the employee is very laborious and risky, but with great returns, the second gives little and little investment, the third is optimal in terms of the ratio of investment of forces and return. Very often people choose the third. If the "fighter" chooses the second position, he is probably not going to invest heavily in the struggle for power, either the goal is not desired, or there is no belief that he can or is worthy to receive power.
The disadvantages of this approach are obvious, such a manipulation may simply not play if the “irritant” does not get involved in the game.
This is usually expressed in personal attacks, when you suddenly realize that you are hooked. Provocative questions, caustic comments, petty nastiness and dirty tricks in your address. It seems to be a trifling question, but the intonation, but the form ... It seems to have clarified the details, but the implied answer ... It's a shame, but most importantly you understand that they wanted to offend you, to make it painful and unpleasant.
If you know the reason for the attacks, you can openly announce it and apologize.
To strengthen and, at the same time, soften the apology, we can admit that we were wrong before the apology.
Periodically, we are mistaken, but few people like to admit their mistakes, we prefer to remain silent. The big problem for smart people is the habit of living in the position of an “in-life” expert. And for many of us, "to be right" is equal to "to have value in the eyes of others." But the addition is also true, if I am always right, then you either agree with me or you are wrong. A. Maslow emphasized the desire for security, respect, self-respect, the basic needs of each person. This additional logic is perceived unconsciously. And it often repels interlocutors, customers, and employees from “life experts”. Constant self-righteousness worsens the relationship (even if it is justified).
Conflict war trick: admit that you may be wrong. If you do it on time, it will save our contact, nerves, time, money, etc. There are methods how to do it beautifully: Socratic dialogue and self-utterance.
Often an unfortunate choice: you can lose, you can win and get a minus in karma, you can’t beat off all attacks. Blaming is much easier than making excuses; the result is minus karma.
If you nevertheless take such a step, then the speech techniques of the dispute can help.
For instance. If you wrap your arguments in a Socratic dialogue, you can save some of the karma.
It is possible, and important, to show that your interlocutor behaves incorrectly, tactlessly and generally discredits himself as a source of information. To do this, we can directly say that the attacks are not addressed, and are groundless. One can call into question his expert position: maybe he did not come out with a title, or he has no experience, or theoretical training, or does not know what “programming patterns” are ... but how can one communicate further with such an ignoramus ...
It is important to limit communication, ideally speaking in the style of “you want me to prove that I am not a camel” and end the topic with a short counterargument and close the topic, without letting the other person answer.
By themselves, such methods of karma will not add, but will reduce its loss - if they are carried out quite technically and artistically.
You can patiently answer questions, ignoring the background, until the team itself comes to your defense. The downside is that protection can not wait, and employees will learn to think that they have a weak leader.
If we know what is happening, and what is the reason for this behavior, we can voice it. Then provide the team with the most “educate” the aggressor. Exit with an open visor is a very good tactic. Important! The description should be as objective as possible and minimally emotional, evaluative. For example: “It seems to me that unflattering remarks and criticism on your part are more connected with our joint work on the previous project than on this one”
You can say how you feel. For example, “I was hurt by what you said. I don’t know if you really wanted this, but it was unpleasant for me. But we have tasks, urgent and important, which must be addressed now. ”
I-saying here also helps.
Sometimes it makes sense to wave your hand. Sometimes, it’s really cheaper to delegate the task to another or do it yourself. It makes sense if the task is not repeated, or the employee in the team for a short time, and / or a similar situation suits both the customer and your management. If you are going to work with this person for a long time and this is his profile activity, then it is better to find other ways.
Give the task again, put it differently, convince him that he will succeed if he makes an effort. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes this gives a delay in solving this problem for you personally (this makes sense in strong boot mode). If we went this way, it is better to use motivating techniques. For example, the crocodilottov pattern: “if you tighten this task, it will be bad, if you do it on time, there will be a bonus for you”
A good way is to start learning. Break the task into small subtasks that cannot be completed, and praise (reinforce) the execution of each small fragment.
Give mentoring over the helpless to the one who wants it. For example, “a power fighter” if he is nearby. A power fighter and helpless are often made for each other. The helpless receives the teacher; the fighter for power receives recognition.
In general, group resistances are not what awaits us. It is quite possible to prevent group resistance, doing prevention, and participating in the selection of personnel. But if group resistances appear against the backdrop of the deadline, then it would be nice to work with them from an instrumental position, and invest less emotional forces in them. It will be better, both for our health and for the project as a whole.
Many parents complain about something similar regarding children. And here it’s impossible to dismiss.
Both employees and children often act in similar ways. The implementation is different, and the types of actions are similar:
- To attract attention
- Power struggle
- Revenge and personal attacks
- Helplessness
Each of these species has its own formal attributes and standard medications.
About problem
According to my personal statistics, most IT managers have grown from engineers. From programmers, QA, admins, etc. How does this happen? The best employee is given an assistant to carry out routine tasks. Then the second. Then - trust to train newcomers. So, slowly, a person is acquiring a team. And here it turns out that now the skills needed for work are completely different. That for each person in the team it takes from half an hour to an hour and a half a day to set and test tasks. And that to solve the problem "how to make a project on time, efficiently, and with the available resource" it is very useful to be able to work with the team. And in this case, we will encounter two interesting features of it - group dynamics and group resistances.
I woke up at night, thinking how to resolve the situation with the team on the project. I did not succeed, and I left the project.Like programming, teamwork is usually mastered through experience and intuition. To some extent, this works, and then long-playing conflicts, aggression, statements “in the hearts”, resentment, low self-esteem, like that of a leader (“I don’t get anything, I want to go back to code ...”) and the team members ("Again, nothing works ...").
(c) familiar PM
What are group resistances?
Every time I lead a new group to the mountains, conflicts arise in the evening of the second day. People and motives change, but time remains the same. Suggests thought.For the first time, group resistance was identified by psychologists and psychotherapists in group psychotherapy, and when working with children. Later we noticed that this behavior can be observed in any groups, it’s just that in psychological groups the atmosphere makes it possible to better identify its non-constructiveness.
Personal experience
Group resistance in IT is the conscious or unconscious behavior of a team member that runs counter to the objectives of the project and to its own declared goals.
It seems that a person does nothing wrong, and seems to behave rationally, but his behavior slows him down.
What might it look like? Let's imagine a meeting at which one of the employees begins to find out in detail the irrelevant details of further work. At the same time, a slight aggression is heard in the intonations, and sarcasm sometimes skips: “Why did you decide that A is better than B?” he asks, "How can a decision be made without the necessary information?" he asks us, and looks at the employees. It seems to be the case, but intuition whispers: “something is wrong here,” and consciousness adds: “there are still a lot of questions in the task list of a higher and more important rank”, “and Agile requires quick planning without detailing long-term plans.” And most importantly, it confuses the sign language of our interlocutor. In other situations, we would say that the employee trolls us.
Outwardly, group resistance can look different: disputes, emotional outbursts, petty nitpicking, apologies, assaults, clownish presentations, substantive and auxiliary proposals, complaints and questions. The main thing is that they impede the continuation of work, distract from the topic, create emotions that are not related to the theme of the audience. For example: we are about to hand over the project tomorrow, and they are about the economic condition of Greece.
A person during group resistance very rarely realizes what exactly he is doing. And he can sincerely believe that he is now working for the good of the project
Types of group resistances
There are four types of group resistance - attracting attention, the struggle for power, revenge and helplessness. Sometimes they allocate more, but, in our opinion, four is enough for effective work.
To attract attention
Signs
The person seems to be actively helping, making approving comments and making them out loud. Sometimes he asks questions, and when you start answering a question, you understand that he is not interested in the answer, and the question was from the category of banal. Sometimes it takes you away from the topic and switches your attention to something of your own or yourself. At meetings, he asks questions that could be resolved personally. Interrupts. Specifies. Slightly trollite - gently, without much aggression. Jokes. It begins to say that the essence of what is said comes after the 20th word. He rustles a bag, opens a window, closes a door, blinds, adjusts the air conditioning. It often goes through the discussion center. Twirls something in his hands, plays with gadgets, from time to time loudly dropping and apologizing.
Often, such behavior causes irritation and a desire to shut up, plant, tie hands, etc., very often, such behavior keeps the attention of the team on the “irritant”. Discussion time is delayed, thoughts are scattered and we understand that something needs to be done.
What to do?
Ignore + ratification (to enhance)
It makes sense to ignore a small attracting attention (for example: someone threw a paper airplane). If the situation repeats (the employee came to the next meeting with a parachute and with pilot's glasses and with 54 airplanes, which he threw after each speaker’s proposal), it’s better to change tactics. The escalation in attracting attention hints that our attention will continue to attract more and more aggressive methods. This is reminiscent of a child’s behavior - if they do not pay attention to your cry, then they will pay attention to a broken vase.
Ignoring can be enhanced by a technique called ratification in hypnosis.
The essence of the technique is to reinforce the desired behavior and not pay attention to the behavior we do not need. Therefore, we give attention not when the “irritant” attracts attention, but when the employee’s behavior is consistent with the goals of the team. For example, he listens attentively or offers sensible suggestions - here we give him attention in a way he loves. For example: ask his opinion, listen carefully, say a compliment. If attention is attracted by "children's" methods - we respond adequately, but minimally.
Give attention
There are many ways here:
You can talk, and find out why the employee thinks so, or why he objects, the main thing is only to listen carefully to the answer without interrupting. If a question or objection was said to attract attention, then, often, the objection is removed, and the questioner himself answers it. The main thing is to listen.
If a person wants attention, let him speak out without interruptingYou can give attention non-verbally - using the location of the body or using gestures and facial expressions. The main point is to draw indirect attention to the “stimulus”. For example, ask everyone to give out sheets of paper for recording. Or bring a marker or ask for a record of the conclusions reached at the meeting. And often even a simple smile or a nod helps. If you give attention in advance, then a person usually does not need much.
You can indirectly attract attention and verbally. Give a name, tell a story from life related to him (if it suits the situation), recall at the meeting the successful decisions of this person.
Power struggle
Signs
There is a person, he can even be a leader in this team (or cannot, but he wants to prove that he can). He does not quite like the current, appointed leader (or he considers himself more competent). Many things can be done better and more correctly, and he knows how and is ready to fight. Moreover, outwardly this struggle may not look aggressive. Small sentences "in essence", constant amendments, "to make it clearer," a way of doing things in one's own way and inciting others. Or maybe a direct challenge to the leader of his actions, a call under his own banner of the other participants, the distribution of instructions to employees. It can start disputes about architecture, technical solutions, and where to go to the corporate party. He can play in public, he can push populist decisions.
“You say that you need three hours to complete this task ?!” Yes, I will do it myself in an hour! Let Sasha take this task, and you will do this one - and just try to tighten it for more than two hours!Well, the Power Fighter is shown by gestures, his gestures show a claim to leadership. He is more focused on the group, rather than the leader. He attracts attention, pushes the speaker (if it is the leader).
QA at a meeting of programmers.
What to do?
Ignore
Objected, did not complete the task? Sometimes the best thing you can do is not get involved. The struggle for power is expensive (in relation to the goals of the team), if the case is isolated - it is better to pretend that they did not notice anything. But if you plan to work with the team for a long time, then it makes sense to talk with the "irritant" "one on one. Without the presence of the group, such a conversation will be easier and cheaper in time. The task of such communication is to show that this behavior does not suit you, rather than stir up a conflict. Therefore you can use the “i-message” technique. And say in the format “when you said that you wouldn’t do work with such an illiterate task setting, I felt irritated and angry, I wanted to pay more attention to the fact that at meetings can be done, not that which is bad.
"I-utterance" or "I-message." First, we describe the situation in the first person (that is, us), then we describe the emotions, and only after that we explain or ask to behave differently. For example: “When, when discussing technical issues, you switched to assessing my abilities, I felt anger and resentment. Please, let's talk in essence. It will be easier for me and more effective in time for both of us. ”
Join the battle and defeat
Rarely when is the best move. However, it is often used. If you enter the battle, try to avoid conflicts. For example, it makes sense to use less conflictogens. In this case, one can use both the Socratic dialogue and the constructive ultimatum.
Join the fray and lose
It also happens. One more argument not to engage in a fight, you can easily lose all respect from the team.
To expel
Extreme measure. If in the eyes of the team this was not a necessity, then this is a huge minus in karma. Accordingly, if we drive out - it is necessary to clearly and clearly convey the idea "for what and what it threatens in the future." However, let this option be Plan B
Workload
And if you push off from the essence of the employee’s request, even if expressed in an uncomfortable form for us, then the person wants power. It is quite possible that we will be able to let him prove himself from the position of leader, even if of a small sector. For example: to educate beginners, to establish a testing process, to provide effective meetings (short, with a written resume, etc.), organize the writing of articles in a corporate blog or on a habr, etc.
Ability to choose + false dichotomies (choice without choice)
- Who wants to be a captain? You?You can give the “fighter" the opportunity to make decisions, choose. And, accordingly, be responsible for the choice. Only within the framework set by us. False dichotomy is an offer of choice in a limited list, where each option suits us. The choice here is replaced by the illusion of choice - any decision will suit us.
- Great, Ruslan - you are the captain!
- Katya, what weapon do you take - a machine gun or a rocket? A rocket? Excellent!
- Ruslan, you are the captain, lead us along this path!
Overheard by second-graders on a trip to the lake
Do you want power? No problem, can you choose, will we go by option A or by option B? The main thing is that both options suit us. You can choose in what order to fix these bugs. But you need to fix it now. Of course, you can prioritize when overtime is on Saturday or Friday night. Just fix should be by Monday morning.
Another technique that can be used here is to propose a choice from a list of three positions. The preferred position is last for us. The first position for the employee is very laborious and risky, but with great returns, the second gives little and little investment, the third is optimal in terms of the ratio of investment of forces and return. Very often people choose the third. If the "fighter" chooses the second position, he is probably not going to invest heavily in the struggle for power, either the goal is not desired, or there is no belief that he can or is worthy to receive power.
The disadvantages of this approach are obvious, such a manipulation may simply not play if the “irritant” does not get involved in the game.
Revenge and personal attacks
Signs
xxx: in 2007 I pinned it: it forced accountants to hold a USB flash drive connected via a USB extension cord vertically so that the files would run faster into the computer.
xxx: for half a year they did this and even believed that it was really faster.
xxx: in 2008 people regained sight and I was left for a month without a bonus
(s) bash
XXX: Funny. The previous admin, it turns out, was with a strange sense of humor.This person has a personal claim to the leader. Maybe the manager chopped up or did not notice a great idea. Maybe he made me go out on the weekend to fix someone else’s bug. Maybe he squeezed his favorite value, or maybe he just doesn’t like the way of speaking or doing. Or maybe he doesn’t like that this person got the position of leader, but not himself. Or something else. Maybe even on the last project. The main thing - there is a subjective reason not to love the speaker.
XXX: The chiefs in the mailers have in the signature that they crave various perversions (with variations).
YYY: But what will not be removed?
XXX: But they do not see. It is in white font. Only if you do Ctrl + A.
YYY: Oh yeah!
YYY: * went to configure Outlook *
(s) bash
This is usually expressed in personal attacks, when you suddenly realize that you are hooked. Provocative questions, caustic comments, petty nastiness and dirty tricks in your address. It seems to be a trifling question, but the intonation, but the form ... It seems to have clarified the details, but the implied answer ... It's a shame, but most importantly you understand that they wanted to offend you, to make it painful and unpleasant.
What to do?
Apologize + admit wrong
If you know the reason for the attacks, you can openly announce it and apologize.
To strengthen and, at the same time, soften the apology, we can admit that we were wrong before the apology.
Periodically, we are mistaken, but few people like to admit their mistakes, we prefer to remain silent. The big problem for smart people is the habit of living in the position of an “in-life” expert. And for many of us, "to be right" is equal to "to have value in the eyes of others." But the addition is also true, if I am always right, then you either agree with me or you are wrong. A. Maslow emphasized the desire for security, respect, self-respect, the basic needs of each person. This additional logic is perceived unconsciously. And it often repels interlocutors, customers, and employees from “life experts”. Constant self-righteousness worsens the relationship (even if it is justified).
Conflict war trick: admit that you may be wrong. If you do it on time, it will save our contact, nerves, time, money, etc. There are methods how to do it beautifully: Socratic dialogue and self-utterance.
Get into a fight
Often an unfortunate choice: you can lose, you can win and get a minus in karma, you can’t beat off all attacks. Blaming is much easier than making excuses; the result is minus karma.
If you nevertheless take such a step, then the speech techniques of the dispute can help.
For instance. If you wrap your arguments in a Socratic dialogue, you can save some of the karma.
It is possible, and important, to show that your interlocutor behaves incorrectly, tactlessly and generally discredits himself as a source of information. To do this, we can directly say that the attacks are not addressed, and are groundless. One can call into question his expert position: maybe he did not come out with a title, or he has no experience, or theoretical training, or does not know what “programming patterns” are ... but how can one communicate further with such an ignoramus ...
It is important to limit communication, ideally speaking in the style of “you want me to prove that I am not a camel” and end the topic with a short counterargument and close the topic, without letting the other person answer.
By themselves, such methods of karma will not add, but will reduce its loss - if they are carried out quite technically and artistically.
Patiently answer questions
You can patiently answer questions, ignoring the background, until the team itself comes to your defense. The downside is that protection can not wait, and employees will learn to think that they have a weak leader.
Announce to group
If we know what is happening, and what is the reason for this behavior, we can voice it. Then provide the team with the most “educate” the aggressor. Exit with an open visor is a very good tactic. Important! The description should be as objective as possible and minimally emotional, evaluative. For example: “It seems to me that unflattering remarks and criticism on your part are more connected with our joint work on the previous project than on this one”
Openly announce your feelings
You can say how you feel. For example, “I was hurt by what you said. I don’t know if you really wanted this, but it was unpleasant for me. But we have tasks, urgent and important, which must be addressed now. ”
I-saying here also helps.
Helplessness
Signs
Artemonovich: Denis again got rid of, got a new job, talked with the gene. Director, they took him and then Dinya gives out, Vitaly Borisovich, could you call me at 6 a.m., otherwise I like to sleep, I'm afraid to oversleep my first working day.Does not argue, does not mind, does not oppose. He “honestly tries,” “tries,” “tries,” and then gives up and says “I can't.” Well, it doesn’t work out for him. True, the comrade did not apply special efforts, more slightly created visibility. But formally fulfilled everything. Often he says "it will not work, but it is not at all real." Often asks for help. It brings this help to the point that it sits nearby and misses the side of an actively working more skilled assistant.
(c) bash
What to do?
Ignore
Sometimes it makes sense to wave your hand. Sometimes, it’s really cheaper to delegate the task to another or do it yourself. It makes sense if the task is not repeated, or the employee in the team for a short time, and / or a similar situation suits both the customer and your management. If you are going to work with this person for a long time and this is his profile activity, then it is better to find other ways.
Keep trying
Give the task again, put it differently, convince him that he will succeed if he makes an effort. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes this gives a delay in solving this problem for you personally (this makes sense in strong boot mode). If we went this way, it is better to use motivating techniques. For example, the crocodilottov pattern: “if you tighten this task, it will be bad, if you do it on time, there will be a bonus for you”
Start simple
A good way is to start learning. Break the task into small subtasks that cannot be completed, and praise (reinforce) the execution of each small fragment.
- it doesn’t work for me ...A good way, the right way, only a very expensive way in time, and patience must be had. True helplessness differs from attracting attention or even from a struggle for power (which sometimes disguise as helplessness) precisely in that a person honestly does not believe in his capabilities. He is convinced that he will not do it, our task is to convince him of the opposite.
- but where is the error?
- in different places, I don’t know ...
- show breakpoints
- but how are they placed in this IDE? I used to use TurboPascal, but everything is different here ...
- find the right place and press ...
- ...
- yeah, fine, show suspicious places
- ...
- you're right, this place is suspicious, there might be a problem
Delegate
Give mentoring over the helpless to the one who wants it. For example, “a power fighter” if he is nearby. A power fighter and helpless are often made for each other. The helpless receives the teacher; the fighter for power receives recognition.
Conclusion
In general, group resistances are not what awaits us. It is quite possible to prevent group resistance, doing prevention, and participating in the selection of personnel. But if group resistances appear against the backdrop of the deadline, then it would be nice to work with them from an instrumental position, and invest less emotional forces in them. It will be better, both for our health and for the project as a whole.