I think being destructive is not personality, but project, team composition, leader, collaboration form, relationships, mood, general stress level, etc. related.

There is no general solution to handle destructive team members, so the classification of the destructive team members or behavior won't help too much (it is certainly interesting).

The team leader or the members can identify the destructive behavior (not the person) first - a behavior makes to achieve the team's goals more difficult or impossible. The first step can be an open discussion in the team about the issue including the destructive member to find a solution.

Other way around to understand the motivations of the destructive team member and handle the person based on that knowledge. The common interests can help to avoid further problems.

Close the collaboration with the damaging one can be a solution as well, I know it is not always feasible.

Every team member has the destructive traits, it depends on how individual is able to manage the grievance at work. howevery the emplyer can manage the destructive trait by proper mentoring, trainings, developments and so on.

this can also help

I think being destructive is not personality, but project, team composition, leader, collaboration form, relationships, mood, general stress level, etc. related.

There is no general solution to handle destructive team members, so the classification of the destructive team members or behavior won't help too much (it is certainly interesting).

The team leader or the members can identify the destructive behavior (not the person) first - a behavior makes to achieve the team's goals more difficult or impossible. The first step can be an open discussion in the team about the issue including the destructive member to find a solution.

Other way around to understand the motivations of the destructive team member and handle the person based on that knowledge. The common interests can help to avoid further problems.

Close the collaboration with the damaging one can be a solution as well, I know it is not always feasible.

Informative.

Simple and decisive action by a leader can make a great difference in solving what at first seems like a huge or complex or stochastic problem. It is very important to discuss from time to time carrying the destructive member along.

Regards

I believe that the typical "destructive team member" behavior relates to the unwillingness to collaborate with the rest of the team, sabotaging the development of the project mainly through superficial work and general lack of interest, demotivating other team members, being a bully overall, etc. In order to manage these sorts of behaviors and improve the overall well being of a team, coaching and team building activities can prove to be very effective.

I'm no expert in the field but I have witnessed firsthand how damaging this kind of behavior can be if it's not addressed, and also how beneficial team building activities can be.

I recommend you read some books in the field of coaching and team building to help you get the best info directly from experts.

Personally I recommend the following:

1. Toxic People: 10 Ways Of Dealing With People Who Make Your Life Miserable by Lillian Glass

2. Life Is Management by Gary Ford

3. Team-building activities for every group by Alanna Jones

Why would you want to keep a crocodile in your back yard?

"Why would you want to keep a crocodile in your back yard?"

Few people are just 'crcocodiles', they are more likely to be a mix of traits, skills and aptitudes. There will be reasons why someone is negative or demotivated and I would first explore these and try to address them. It is likely that you have someone on your team for a reason and they will once have had value. It may be easy to restore this and their issues may be easier to address than you imagine. But if you don't ask you may end up writing soemone off unnecessarily. Recruiting the wrong person can be an expensive mistake.

They do exist. I have always laid a foundation with groups I have led like this: I can work with someone who is reasonable, but not teachable; and I can work with someone who is teachable, but not reasonable; but I cannot work with someone who is neither reasonable nor teachable.

There are are many conversations that flow from this foundation with problem members or in dealing with problem members. Most resolve well. The reality is that there is a small portion of the population (apply normal curve here) that are true outliers. They must be dealt with swiftly and permanently once identified. Suggest being acquaintanced with the 7 deadly sins of narcissism.

Muhammad,

I think in every answer above is some truth. Let me have some thoughts about your question. There is a big difference between:

Somebody is destructive OR somebody behaves destructive.

Muhammad, ask youself: When you think the team member is destructive (as a person, at all) then you should let him go.

But: If you can name the destructive doings and come to the conclusion that the guy behind is not all bad (which is not easy during stress situations but can be part of good leadership) you should work on the behavior piece by piece.

Feel free to let us know.

Regards and good luck

Rudi

There cant be a specific profile. If there would be some technique that can help to identify such a profile, no Project leader would opt to assign project related assignments to that person at first place. However some of team member can exhibit traits that might cause damage to the progress of a project during its course if not mitigated and controlled timely. Most common such trait which is found in almost all the teams comprising of human beings for any particular project is reluctance in cooperation with other division or person. I have experience that such characters exist everywhere whether you work at your own country or abroad. People tend to confine themselves by assuming the boundary of their accountability.

Most of the Project Manager face such situation on routine basis. This is worsening and will always be a challenge for Management considering a Project is an endeavor that require team work in single direction.

Dear Dr. Charles Akintunde,

Thanks for expert inputs. Thanks also to spare your precious time for valuable answer.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Robert Istvan Radics,

Thanks for expert inputs. Thanks also to spare your precious time for valuable answer.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Ahmed Mahdi,

Thanks for taking interest. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Modestus Okwu,

Thanks for expert inputs. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Raluca Dovleac,

Thanks for suggestions & expert inputs. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Sean Alfred,

Thanks for expert inputs. Please explain if possible. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Alex Livadeas,

Thanks for detailed explanation with your expert inputs. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Richard Hodge,

Thanks for expert inputs. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Rudi K. Winterhalter,

Thanks for recommending positive attitude & root cause analysis. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Dear Dr. Syed Tauseeful Hasan Abidi,

Thanks for detailed suggestions & expert inputs. Thanks also to spare your precious time.

Thanks & Regards

Discussion and persuasion are required to maintain the project team integrity. Differences always exist among the members of a team but by dealing it amicably one can have a good team.

Good luck

One of the popular classification of the “Destructive Team Member Profiles” is the following:

1. The Tank

2. The Grenade

3. The Think-they-know-it-all

4. The Maybe Person

5. The No Person

6. The Sniper

7. The Yes Person

8. The Traitor

9. The End Arounder

The Tank: a person who dominates a discussion or issue by brute force of personality. When they present, they speak as an authority. When dealing with a project and defining new solutions, these types of people can be destructive to the process of open discussion and consideration of alternatives.

Solution: thank them for their opinion, then ask if there are some other perspectives from other team members.

The Grenade: The conversation will be going along fine and all of the sudden, a team member lobs out a discussion-ending comment.

Solution: Address the comment head on and suggest that the grenade thrower refrain from comments that will upend conversation of alternatives.

The Think-they-know-it-all: Much like the tank.

Solution: Same as Grenade.

The Maybe Person: This is the person who cannot commit to any position or issue. They take refuge in ambiguity.

Solution: On a project team, you need to help them commit. Give them simple alternatives and ask them to decide.

The No Person: This is your general naysayer. Nothing will work, no matter what.

Solution: Help to see that no is not an option. Define the alternatives.

The Sniper: This is a destructive force in a team. The Sniper tenders up negative comments within the team that negate or attack ideas.

Solution: address the behavior immediately and let them know that comments like that are unacceptable based on team norms.

The Yes Person: While less negative, this person is so agreeable that they negate their influence through a lack of objective analysis. They are more eager to please than they are to offer objective alternatives.

Solution: Point out that you appreciate their positive outlook, but they need to explore options more thoroughly if they want to gain credibility with the group.

The Traitor: Team member speaks very little in meetings, or sometimes disagrees, and spends times out of meetings lobbying for alternative positions or arguing decisions made by the team

Solution: Establish team rules early that state that issues are dealt with in team meetings and this behavior is not acceptable. When it is uncovered, PM addresses it in the meeting or, if necessary, in private

The End Arounder: Team member who goes around team and PM to another supervisor or administrator and complains, lobbies or takes alternative positions to team.

Solution: Identify the behavior in team development and make it known it is not acceptable. Get all administrators and supervisors to suppress the behavior if it occurs. PM should call it when it’s seen and the Project Sponsor should nip it in bud.

One of the popular classification of the “Destructive Team Member Profiles” is the following:

1. The Tank

2. The Grenade

3. The Think-they-know-it-all

4. The Maybe Person

5. The No Person

6. The Sniper

7. The Yes Person

8. The Traitor

9. The End Arounder

The Tank: a person who dominates a discussion or issue by brute force of personality. When they present, they speak as an authority. When dealing with a project and defining new solutions, these types of people can be destructive to the process of open discussion and consideration of alternatives.

Solution: thank them for their opinion, then ask if there are some other perspectives from other team members.

The Grenade: The conversation will be going along fine and all of the sudden, a team member lobs out a discussion-ending comment.

Solution: Address the comment head on and suggest that the grenade thrower refrain from comments that will upend conversation of alternatives.

The Think-they-know-it-all: Much like the tank.

Solution: Same as Grenade

The Maybe Person: This is the person who cannot commit to any position or issue. They take refuge in ambiguity.

Solution: On a project team, you need to help them commit. Give them simple alternatives and ask them to decide.

The No Person: This is your general naysayer. Nothing will work, no matter what.

Solution: Help to see that no is not an option. Define the alternatives.

The Sniper: This is a destructive force in a team. The Sniper tenders up negative comments within the team that negate or attack ideas.

Solution: address the behavior immediately and let them know that comments like that are unacceptable based on team norms.

The Yes Person: While less negative, this person is so agreeable that they negate their influence through a lack of objective analysis. They are more eager to please than they are to offer objective alternatives.

Solution: Point out that you appreciate their positive outlook, but they need to explore options more thoroughly if they want to gain credibility with the group.

The Traitor: Team member speaks very little in meetings, or sometimes disagrees, and spends times out of meetings lobbying for alternative positions or arguing decisions made by the team

Solution: Establish team rules early that state that issues are dealt with in team meetings and this behavior is not acceptable. When it is uncovered, PM addresses it in the meeting or, if necessary, in private

The End Arounder: Team member who goes around team and PM to another supervisor or administrator and complains, lobbies or takes alternative positions to team.

Solution: Identify the behavior in team development and make it known it is not acceptable. Get all administrators and supervisors to suppress the behavior if it occurs. PM should call it when it’s seen and the Project Sponsor should nip it in bud

It is very possible to group a team under a single objective even if the mentalities are different. So

- You make a plant of work according to time.

- Divides functions and positions (on paper, signed).

- You must always be ready to expel the saboteur (the one who does not work, who speaks too much, who criticizes for the critic ..).

My personal principle: To succeed, we must not look for the causes of success, but we must eliminate the causes of defeat.

look up Snakes in Suits by Paul Babiak - it goes into great detail on this

Dear Muhammad,

I like your nine typologies and I do like the solutions as well; they are suitable for e.g. managing team members during meetings but I think they do not provide structural aid on dealing with continous destructive behavior by a team member or team members, which - most likely - will not be limited to one meeting only.

I agree with Rudi K. Winterhalter that we should distinguish between destructive team members and destructive behavior. Prior to my present PhD-trajectory, I have done some research on this topic, similarly intrigued by this topic as you are (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jbcpr.2016.41006). I came to - more or less - similar conclusions as Rudi K. Winterhalter. I do not pretend that my findings are the only way of looking at this topic but I learned that all team members initially have the best intentions. This actually makes sense as hardly anybody starts as team member for destructive purposes. It is only when a team member perceives developments are going 'astray' - according to his/her view - that destructive behavior ultimately can become a non-cognitive coping-option. About this kind of coping-behavior there is quite some literature, with Hirschman's "Exit, Voice and Loyalty" (1970) being a 'classic'. In accordance with the commentsby Robert Istvan Radics, literature does not show a "general solution", in contrast, it shows that each case needs its own well thought approach.

Kind regards,

Rik Hoogeveen

It is a very dangerous leap from making ad hominem determinations a priori regarding the total entity manifest in any individual. In most places, such an act is described as bigotry. The post's originator characterised a group of people as "destructive team members". Some contributors have been more discerning and, therefore, distinguished between 'being' destructive and 'doing' destructive. Locker room banter translates very poorly in open society. If the intent is to use the artifice described; where peoples lives, reputations and careers may be at stake, then sober critical reflection is in order. Any psychometric instrument should be rigorously tested, validated and calibrated. Approaches that fail on these fronts are nothing short of reckless. As researchers and academics, we are obligated to be communicators par excellence. The impact of our contributions may trigger the so-called 'butterfly effect' and can have multi-generational impact.

Please share me the best answer might you get...