Fix the Problem, Not the Person

 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.