How do I handle a key department head who refuses to participate in offsite vulnerability or team-building exercises, claiming it is a waste of time?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

It can be challenging when a key department head resists participating in activities designed to strengthen the team. You cannot force vulnerability, but you can clearly communicate that team health is a critical operational metric. A leader who refuses to engage in trust-building exercises effectively creates a barrier to the team's collective success.

Addressing Resistance Before the Offsite

Start with a direct, one-on-one conversation before the offsite begins.

• Explain the "Why": Utilize frameworks, such as those from Kathy Kolbe and Charles Green, to explain that trust fundamentally requires taking personal risks. When a leader disengages during team exercises, they are inadvertently sending a message that they either do not trust the team or are unwilling to be trusted.
• Clarify Purpose: Emphasize that team-building exercises are not trivial "touchy-feely" distractions. They are specifically designed to minimize status management behaviors that can impede decision-making, such as:
• Hesitation
• Political posturing
• Subtle competition

During the Offsite Session

If the department head still shows resistance during the offsite, allow them to observe initially. However, ensure their reluctance does not disrupt the group's progress.

• Integrate Team Health: Use a structured process like IDS® (Identify, Discuss, Solve) during the offsite to discuss team health as a core business issue. This frames the importance of these exercises within a strategic, problem-solving context.

Evaluating Persistent Resistance

If resistance to team engagement is a recurring pattern, it's time for a deeper evaluation.

• Accountability Chart Review: Assess the individual using your [Accountability Chart](/qa/how-can-we-use-keith-cunninghams-thinking-time-framework-to-diagnose-whether-our-current-accountability-chart-structure-is-actually-the-primary-bottleneck-preventing-us-from-reaching-our-next-revenue-milestone) and the GWC™ (Gets it, Wants it, has the Capacity) framework.
• Cultural Fit: If they are unwilling to participate in the culture of a highly aligned leadership team, they may not be the right person for that particular seat. This aligns with the principle of ensuring [right person, right seat](/qa/right-person-wrong-seat-no-openings) within your organization.
• Conative Stress: Consider if their resistance stems from conative stress, where their natural way of acting conflicts with the demands of their role or team expectations. Exploring tools like the [Kolbe A Index](/qa/how-do-we-use-the-kolbe-a-index-to-diagnose-why-our-sales-and-operations-heads-are-constantly-in-conflict-over-project-handoffs) can sometimes provide insight into these underlying conative dynamics.

Related questions

• [Our leadership team is protective of their departments and avoids RPRS calls. How do we build trust to speak openly?](/qa/building-vulnerability-trust-rprs-calls)
• [I have a loyal executive who has been with me for twelve years, gets the culture, and wants the job, but they simply do not have the capacity to handle our operations now that we have scaled past twenty million. How do I handle this without destroying our culture?](/qa/long-tenured-leader-lacks-capacity-gwc)
• [As the founder, I suspect I am the primary bottleneck in our Marketing seat, but my team is too polite to tell me I do not have the capacity for it. How do I objectively assess my own GWC for this seat?](/qa/founder-bottleneck-gwc-assessment)
• [We have an employee who scores one hundred percent on our core values but fails the GWC for their current operations seat, and we have no other open seats on our Accountability Chart. Do we have to let them go?](/qa/right-person-wrong-seat-no-openings)