A negative colleague is far from the only explanation for a dysfunctional team. Other reasons for a team that isn’t working can be poor cooperation with other teams in the organisation, members having personal problems, them not having the skills, or uncertainty about the direction. So when you evaluate your team, the whole picture matters before you conclude that the problem is down to a negative colleague. Even so, it can be hard not to make this mistake, because unfortunately we’re not as rational as we think we are.

Four typical mistakes we make when we judge a colleague:

We make a fundamental attribution error
As I’ve described in my article Your view of other people’s mistakes, we often end up judging other people’s mistakes as individual choices (Ross, 1977). We do that even when we know the mistakes are down to circumstances. “She really ought to pull herself together,” you might think about a colleague, even though you know she’s in the middle of a tough divorce. This is also called the “fundamental attribution error”. That is, we judge a colleague as negative even though the colleague normally isn’t like that.
.
We make a cynical attribution error (“sinister attribution error”)
Another mistake we make is called the “sinister attribution error” (Kramer, 1994). It’s about us judging ourselves by our intentions, but others by their actions. It means that if a colleague walks past you in the corridor without saying hello, your interpretation depends on what you think of that colleague. “He didn’t even bother to say hello,” you might think about the colleague you don’t care for. The colleague you do like, on the other hand, gets a more positive motive: “He was probably on his way to an important meeting.” So we often assign cynical motives to the people we don’t like. That’s why it’s also easier to judge a colleague as negative if we already dislike the person.
.
We misjudge the cause of a poor result
We often remember negative situations better than positive ones. If there’s been a situation with a negative colleague, for instance, the team will, all else being equal, remember it better. That makes it easier to point to that situation as the explanation for why the team delivered a poor result. The result could also have been caused by a lack of cooperation with another team, but that’s not what we remember (Meyer, 1990).
.
The team wants a scapegoat
Finally, a negative colleague can also become the team’s scapegoat. The motivation for a scapegoat is that the problem gets contained, which keeps the rest of the team’s image and self-worth intact (Gemmill, 1989). “We’re running just fine. If only that guy hadn’t been on the team, everything would have been good.” I’ve seen many teams in this situation. The negative colleague has just left, and now the team has the idea that everything will quickly be good again. Slowly but clearly, though, it becomes obvious that the negative colleague wasn’t the only reason the team functions poorly.

We judge ourselves by our intentions, but others by their actions.

When a team looks for an explanation for a poor result, it will typically point to a member if that colleague hasn’t been in line with the rest of the team. But being out of line isn’t necessarily down to the colleague being negative. Being out of line can also arise when the colleague plays devil’s advocate or is a positive deviant. Being a positive deviant is when you can solve a problem without extra knowledge or resources that others haven’t had (Sternin, 2000). When you try to do positive deviance, it’s important to bring the whole team along on the idea. Maybe the colleague hasn’t been able to convince the others and is going solo for a while. That doesn’t mean the colleague is negative, though. On the other hand, it quickly creates a bad atmosphere if the team labels a colleague as negative, because it links being out of line with being negative.

So if you come in as an external consultant, a new manager or a new colleague, the link between a negative colleague and the team’s poor results can be a bit of a puzzle. Does a negative colleague make the team produce poor results, or are poor results to blame for the colleague being called negative?

If the team doesn’t have a negative colleague, but you handle the situation as if it does, you’ll judge the colleague even though the person isn’t doing anything wrong. That will create a fair amount of frustration and conflict and, paradoxically, mean that the colleague — like a self-fulfilling prophecy — may end up becoming negative. If, on the other hand, the team does have a negative colleague, but you handle the situation as if it doesn’t, the team will continue its downward spiral. So you can risk becoming part of the problem yourself if you handle it the wrong way.

Being out of line isn’t necessarily down to the colleague being negative. Being out of line can also arise when the colleague plays devil’s advocate or is a positive deviant.

9. What can you do as a colleague?

Say it, say it like it is, and say it properly
It’s never nice to have to give feedback to a negative colleague. But because a negative colleague matters a great deal to both you and your team, it’s important that you speak up in good time. Try to stick to how the negative colleague’s comments and behaviour — rather than your feelings — affect the team’s performance. That way the conversation becomes more objective and less muddy. Read more about giving feedback in my article How to show ownership and build togetherness.
.
Build a shared understanding through a team charter
A shared understanding means the members feel a greater conscientiousness about what contributes to good teamwork. Research shows that teams which make a team charter raise the level of conscientiousness in the teamwork (Aaron, 2014). So I recommend you make a written agreement on what good communication and behaviour look like in your team. Here it’s also worth discussing how you hold each other to the agreement if you slip. The advantage is that you create shared ownership around your team charter. Social sanctions often work better than a manager’s sanctions. You can read more about the value of a team charter here.
.
Give feedback collectively
If the colleague doesn’t keep the agreements you’ve made in your team charter, you should review it. Here your main question should be: “How can we put together a version 2, so the team charter works for the whole team?” It’s important here that the negative colleague hears from everyone how his or her negative communication and behaviour affect the whole team’s performance. It may sound harsh, but my experience is that the vast majority of teams know that when a colleague is in the hot seat, it’s important to give feedback without the colleague losing face.

A negative colleague quickly creates a negative team, because the other colleagues quickly move into a defensive position. So it’s important that you, as a colleague, don’t hesitate to take action with a negative colleague. If you’ve already moved into a defensive position, my experience is that the team will struggle to do more on its own. Your manager needs to step up.

Try to stick to how the negative colleague’s comments and behaviour — rather than your feelings — affect the team’s performance.

10. What can you do as a manager?

When you, as a manager, are faced with a colleague who is constantly negative, coasts along or shows no respect, taking action is part of your core management tasks. It isn’t necessarily your fault that the colleague has become negative, but you’re the one responsible for the solution.

Understand why the colleague is negative (Forsyth, 2017)
There can be many reasons why a colleague is negative. For example, it happens that the core task changes, so it no longer suits the colleague. At the broadest level, it can also be down to disagreement about the method. In that case it can be about your goals or procedures. Is there disagreement about resources? In that case it can be that the employee feels the team is internally competing for time or materials. Is there disagreement about your values? In that case it can be about personal values and the interpretation of what’s right and wrong. Disagreement can also stem from something personal that lies outside the workplace. It could, for example, be a long-running divorce.
.
Put three meetings in the calendar and consider giving a warning
It’s important that you meet with the negative colleague, and that you meet several times a couple of weeks apart. Development is never an event, but a process that takes time. In the meetings you have to make sure the negative colleague is in no doubt about how it affects the team’s performance. It must be completely clear to the colleague what you expect of good teamwork. Out of nervousness, some managers talk too much. That blurs the message. Your message has to be razor-sharp. It will be, if you prepare three points and write them down for the colleague during the meeting. That way your messages become the focal point of your meetings. To make sure the negative colleague understands how serious it is, I’d recommend you consider giving an unofficial warning at the first meeting. The following meetings follow up on the agreements you made at the first meeting. Get more inspiration for your meetings in my article What’s heard doesn’t get understood.
.
Restructure, move or dismiss
A restructure can be that you find a better way for the team to work. That can make the negative colleague feel better. Alternatively, you can move the negative colleague into another team. I’ve seen that work in many places. Finally, you as a manager may have to dismiss the negative colleague. A reflective question you can ask is: “Why do you want to work here?” The answer can be a wake-up call for the colleague, but it can also give you an idea of which way to go now. Dismissing someone is a hard decision. Even so, I often use the term “timely dismissal” with leader teams. I do that because it’s just as hard to watch a colleague fail to thrive day after day. Sometimes a dismissal makes the negative colleague find themselves and their strengths again. Other times it’s a wake-up call for the manager that they intervened in the wrong way, or too late.

There can be many reasons why a colleague is negative. For example, it happens that the core task changes, so it no longer suits the colleague.

The harsh realities

So a negative colleague has a major influence on the team, and it can end with the rest of the team turning negative. A negative colleague has three characteristics, which are: a constantly negative attitude, coasting along, and showing no respect for the team by breaking the team’s norms. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be hard to spot a negative colleague; even so, we make a number of mistakes when we judge. We judge the negative colleague and ignore the circumstances that may be the cause. We’re harsher in our judgement if it’s a colleague we don’t like. We link a negative situation with a negative colleague, even though they aren’t necessarily related. Finally, we use the colleague as a scapegoat for the team’s lack of performance by calling him or her negative. A colleague can be a positive deviant but be branded negative, if the team believes that negative behaviour equals being out of line. Especially as an external consultant or a new manager, you can quickly become part of the problem if you misjudge the situation. That’s why the guide is a good tool for assessing the team’s interpretation of a colleague who makes mistakes.

As a colleague you can give individual feedback, and as a team you can give collective feedback. As a follow-up to this feedback, you can put together a team charter. It’s a good, strong statement of intent that creates a shared understanding and a high degree of conscientiousness about the teamwork.

As a manager, team development is one of your primary tasks. You can do that through individual coaching and team coaching. If that doesn’t work on the negative colleague, you should restructure, find a new team for the colleague or dismiss them. It would be poor leadership to just let things slide.

If you’re a colleague of the negative person, and you have a manager who doesn’t take action, I’d recommend you look for a way out. If you want to give your manager a chance, you can choose to rattle the sabre. But you have to ask yourself whether you have enough patience to wait for the manager to build the competence it takes to handle the negative colleague.

Life is simply too short for poor leadership and negative colleagues. It’s a huge source of stress, and it can make you really ill if you stay on the team.

What I see is that managers are often met with respect from their teams when they solve the hard challenge that a negative colleague clearly is. On the other hand, I also see colleagues lose respect for and trust in their manager when they see that nothing is happening. So I recommend you talk to your manager, do what you can to help, and mark the calendar. If there haven’t been clear improvements, or the problem hasn’t been solved within three months, you should leave the team. The reason you should do what you can to help is that you need a counter-argument when doubt sets in. It will, because you’ll have to leave a job and some colleagues you most likely care a great deal about. If it’s your manager who is the negative one, I wouldn’t wait three months.

It is, of course, unfair that you’re the one who has to leave the team, but life is simply too short for poor leadership and negative colleagues. It’s a huge source of stress, and you can get really ill from staying. On top of that, it affects your self-respect, your professionalism and your wellbeing.

If your manager won’t face the harsh realities, you have to.

Sources

Social Roles, Social Control, and Biases on Social-Perception Processes

Ross, 1977, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

”The Sinister Attribution Error.” Paranoid Cognition and Collective Distrust in Organizations

Kramer, 1994, Motivation and Emotion

Toward a Better Specification of the Mood-Congruency Effect in Recall

J.D. Meyer, 1990, Journal of Experimental Psychology

The Dynamics of Scapegoating in Small Groups

Gemmill, 1989, Small Group Research

The Power of Positive Deviancy

Sternin, 2000, Harvard Business Review