“I’m worried about my team,” a project leader confided.

“What seems to be the issue?” I asked.

“We started strong, but the last few meetings have been unproductive.”

“Why do you think that is?”

“A couple of members dominate discussions. One consistently fails to complete his action items. Another spends too much time on social media during meetings.”

This is a common challenge: teams often drift back toward individual agendas. The result is lost chemistry, stalled decisions, and frustration. To counteract this natural tendency, intentional team training can be a powerful tool.

Leaders play a critical role in setting the tone. They can model constructive behavior and weave training into the team’s ongoing mission. For example:

• Begin meetings with a short video on effective teamwork, followed by a brief discussion.

• Share a concise article on handling disruptions and highlight key takeaways.

• Conduct periodic surveys to gauge how members perceive communication, conflict resolution, and progress toward objectives.

These small but consistent practices reinforce collaboration and accountability. Over time, effective leadership, competent members, and continuous training dramatically increase the likelihood of success. And perhaps then, the team can embody the timeless motto of the three musketeers: “One for all, and all for one.”

Molly had a presentation in two hours when her color printer suddenly malfunctioned.

“Why don’t you ask Jannet in the marketing department to borrow hers?” a friend suggested.

Molly hesitated. “Jannet’s very territorial. She insists the printer is for marketing use only.”

“Ask her anyway,” the friend encouraged.

Molly approached Jannet and politely requested to use the color printer. Jannet replied firmly, “Our printer is reserved for marketing. Try accounting—they have one too.”

Undeterred, Molly explained that the presentation was critical and could help secure a new account for the company. After a moment of consideration, Jannet relented. “Alright,” she said. “You can use it this one time.”

Later, Molly noticed a shift—Jannet seemed warmer, more cooperative, even friendly. This change reflects the Franklin Effect: when someone does you a favor, they often grow fonder of you. Benjamin Franklin described asking a political rival to lend him a rare book. After returning it, the rival became noticeably more cordial and supportive.

Psychological studies have confirmed this phenomenon. When individuals persuade reluctant counterparts to perform a small favor, it often leads to increased goodwill and stronger interpersonal connections. Asking for help, especially from those who seem resistant, can be a powerful tool for building trust and increasing influence.

The Accounts Payable Manager addressed his team candidly, “We are missing early payment discounts, 10% of our payments are late, and last period we duplicated payments of three invoices.”

Team members quickly responded with familiar refrains, “We’re short-staffed.” “Our volume has grown.” “A senior member retired.” “Corporate will not approve a new position.”

“We need to add staff,” is often the default solution to performance issues.  But adding staff is expensive, time-consuming and is not always the answer. More voices mean more chances for misalignment of duties.  Tasks get split but ownership is unclear. New personalities disrupt team dynamics. Misunderstandings and rumors increase. 

For example, an experienced employee complains to the manager, “The new person is not following our process for approving payables.  I spend a lot of time correcting his mistakes.”

The manager responds, “Did you try to help the new person understand the process?”

“No, it is not my responsibility to train the person.” 

Before adding staff, check to see if you can save time by eliminating unnecessary processes, adding electronic tools to replace manual efforts, empowering members to make more decisions without getting approvals, or replacing a persistent low-performer with a more talented team member.    

“Has my request to attend the conference been approved?” asked an employee.

“Not yet,” replied a member of the talent development team.

“I submitted it six weeks ago. I know budget is available. Why the delay?”

“It needs approval from your manager, the training committee, the budgeting office, strategic planning, and legal. Legal is busy with a complex litigation.”

This exchange reveals a common dysfunction in large organizations: treating every process as fragile and high-risk. Kyle Pretsch, writing for the Forbes Technology Council, says that 25% of processes are like rubber balls.  If you drop them, they will bounce. Bureaucracies assume that all processes are glass balls, and managers worry excessively about breaking unimportant balls. The results are mind-numbing tasks that drive costs while contributing little value. 

To distinguish between rubber and glass balls, leaders should:

1 Focus on what is urgent and important, not what is merely procedural.

2. Identify where approvals pile up and eliminate unnecessary ones.

3. Track approval cycle times and use data to spotlight bottlenecks.

4. Clarify decision rights. Define who decides, who advises, and who executes.

5. Automate routine tasks. Free up human judgment for high-impact decisions.

6. Encourage front-and second-line managers to act and evaluate them on results.

An engineer approached an operator with a suggestion, “I think it might reduce our assembly issues if you washed the parts in a cleaning solution prior to attaching them. What do you think?”

“It might be worth trying.”

“I’ll get the correct cleaning solution for you; and if you don’t mind, try it for a few cycles and let’s see if it helps.”

“Be glad to.”

In another case, an engineer suggested to an operator, “I’ve made some slight adjustments in the design of these attachments.  They are going to work a lot better for you.” 

The operator, handling the new attachments like the hot end of a branding iron, clumsily affixed them to the part.  The result was a failed inspection.  “It doesn’t work,” the operator reported, seemingly pleased about the failure.

Both engineers proposed minor changes, but the tone and relationship dynamics were markedly different. The first exchange was collaborative, respectful, and open-ended. The second was more directive, with little room for dialogue or ownership.

Even the most well-intentioned improvements can falter if the human element is overlooked. Change is not just a matter of logic—it’s a matter of connection.

As a 15-year-old quarterback, future coaching legend Nick Saban faced a challenge—he was behind six with two minutes on the clock. He called a timeout.

His coach said, “Young Nicky, what do you think?”

Saban replied, “I think you should call this play.”

The coach said, “You’ve got the fastest guy in the state at left halfback, and a three-time all-state split end. I don’t care what play you call—one of those two needs to get the ball.”

Saban chose a play-action fake to the halfback and launched a pass to the split end. Touchdown. Game won.

That moment was a lesson–don’t think plays, think players.

John Wooden, who led UCLA to ten national championships in twelve years, echoed the same truth: “The team with the better players usually wins.”

The highly successful entrepreneur Jay Rodgers, founder of Biz Owners Ed, applies it to business: “Sometimes it’s more profitable to change the players than to change the game.”

Jim Collins, in Good to Great proclaims, “Get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats.”

Whether on the field, in the boardroom, or within a community, your leadership success depends more on your people than your strategy.

A hospital administrator recently shared a concern: “We are transitioning to a new electronic health record (EHR) system, and one of my experienced nurses continues using paper notes and is consistently late entering data.”

“Did the nurses receive sufficient training?” I asked.

“Yes.”

“Did you communicate the reasons for making the change?”

“Yes.”

Did you ask the nurse why she did not want to comply?”

 “Yes. She says it feels impersonal, disrupts the workflow, and she worries that nurses will spend less time with patients.”

In any organizational change, typically five to ten percent of a team will resist. Effective leaders balance empathy and accountability when dealing with resistors.  Consider:

1. Listening without arguing.

2. Showing examples of how the new system improves service and reduces costs.

3. Pairing the reluctant employee with a tech-savvy colleague who can offer firsthand assistance.

4. Setting firm, reasonable deadlines.

5. Celebrating small wins.

6. Spending more time with employees who embrace the change.

7. Avoiding over-investing in those who remain resistant.

9. Implementing appropriate consequences.

Changes are rarely seamless. Focus your energy on those who are moving forward—and let their momentum lead the way.