Some colleagues agree in bad faith.
They concur, go along, consent, or agree with a proposed course of action and then do their own thing.
Their initial agreement avoids any conflict and buys them some time. But soon thereafter, they renege on their commitment and follow an entirely different path.
They do what they believe or prefer regardless of their agreement or commitment.
When this is a consistent pattern of behavior, trust erodes quickly. Nothing the colleague agrees to can be trusted or depended upon.
The thought occurs that this passive resistance is intentional. They comply, falsely, to remove any obstacles, and then do what they please.
When confronted after the fact, they often play stupid, pretending they didn’t understand what they agreed to or claim they didn’t believe the decision was final.
Or worse, they deny they followed a different course of action. They explain how what they’re doing is following the “spirit” of the agreement.
Holding them accountable is never easy. Giving them the benefit of the doubt seems to reinforce the behavior.
Short of refusing to work with them, what can be done to insist they follow through? How can this colleague be corralled into maintaining their commitment?
The solid advice of experienced leaders is to clarify agreements more explicitly, address the pattern directly and privately, and test for genuine alignment before closing the discussion.
Unfortunately, these recommendations work best with colleagues who don’t mean to misdirect and mislead.
Too many colleagues who fit this pattern do so to get their way, without any regard for the consternation and distrust they create.
Highly manipulative behavior, like passive resistance or selective compliance, is best quashed by structure.
Greater clarity can help, but it normally doesn’t get the job done. When bad faith is suspected, one or more imposed structures will usually dissuade the colleague from deviating from their agreement.
Chief among them is documentation.
Articulating the agreement in writing with their name attached and distributing it to a broader group of colleagues and leaders normally constitutes a strong constraint.
In fact, any public commitment will work as an impediment to freewheeling.
Another structure to consider is to ask the manipulative colleague to generate and agree to a set of initial steps or actions that display their commitment. The existence of this plan can convince them that there is less wiggle room later to alter course.
Another idea is to insist on a written rationale for any change in direction. This requirement often inhibits rogue behavior after a tepid agreement.
As a last resort, making it known how disputes regarding false compliance will be resolved and who adjudicates them will dampen their enthusiasm to fudge.
Sadly, structure controls bad behavior, but it doesn’t change character.
The good news is that visible processes typically outmaneuver hidden agendas.
The bad news is that curtailing the bad behavior doesn’t repair the distrust that exists. Or that dealing with such a colleague is simply exhausting.
