What if the problem is not the person—but the way we are seeing them?
Once, I was taking a
session for a group of women employees working in an IT firm. We were
discussing the practical challenges they face while leading teams.
One team lead shared a
concern. She said one of her team members consistently delayed work, resisted
changes, and was not open to the solutions she proposed.
I asked her what she
thought was the reason behind his behavior.
She said, “He is older
than me, and I feel he doesn’t like working under a woman leader.”
I paused for a moment.
While this is a
concern that many women leaders bring up in workplaces, I usually don’t go with
the first explanation that comes up. Not because it is invalid but because I
want them to find clarity before arriving at a conclusion. At the same time, I
also want to ensure we don’t label people based on generalized beliefs.
So I asked her, “Do
you have any evidence that he dislikes working under you? Has he said it
directly, or have you heard it from someone?”
She said no. She added
that from his body language, she felt it.
I gently explored that
further.
Sometimes, when a
person avoids eye contact, leans back, or responds with minimal words, it can
appear as disinterest or resistance. But those same cues could also mean
something else—lack of clarity, disengagement from the task, or even personal
stress.
Body language can give
us signals—but it doesn’t always reveal the full story.
For a conclusion, we
need patterns, conversations, and supporting incidents.
So I asked her again,
“Can you recall any specific incident that clearly points to this?”
She paused. Thought
for a while. And then said, “No… but he delays work and resists my ideas.”
I asked, “Then how did
this thought come in?”
She said, “I was
discussing this with a few friends, and they mentioned that generally men don’t
prefer working under women leaders. And I started noticing his expressions more
from that lens.”
That was the moment.
It wasn’t a fact. It
was an interpretation—shaped by external opinions and reinforced by selective
observation.
And once we label the
person, we stop looking at the problem.
We don’t just see the
person—we see them through a lens we have already created.
So the shift is not
always to change the person—but to change the lens through which we are
looking.
From there, we moved
the conversation toward the problem itself.
If the issue is
delay—have a one-on-one conversation to understand the reason behind it.
If the issue is
resistance—ask for his perspective. What does he think would work better?
Discuss the pros and risks together.
And if the behavior
continues, move from assumptions to structure.
Create a simple framework for the team:
Clear task allocation
Defined timelines
Regular follow-ups
A transparent escalation process
And just as important—acknowledge completion.
A simple appreciation
message or email when work is delivered on time creates balance. It reinforces
what is working—not just what is not.
When appreciation and
escalation both exist within a system, feedback stops feeling personal. It
becomes part of a process.
So even when you
escalate, it is not seen as an attack on the person—but as a response to the
problem.
Because in the
workplace, we cannot always change people.
But we can change how
we understand, approach, and respond to situations.
The
moment we label a person, we limit our ability to solve the problem.
But
when we shift our focus to the situation, we open up possibilities.
So
the next time something feels difficult, pause.
Ask
yourself
Am I trying to fix the
person? Or am I trying to understand the problem?
Because clarity begins
not in changing others
But in changing the
way we see.
