Coaching a Resistant Team Leader
A production supervisor, 'Sam', has 12 years' experience and manages 15 staff on a ready-to-eat packing line. A new glove and handwash policy was introduced after an audit finding. Sam disagrees with it, believes it slows the line, and has been heard telling staff 'we've always done it this way'. Compliance on Sam's shift is 60% versus 95% on the other shift. When challenged by the food safety manager, Sam becomes defensive and says the manager 'doesn't understand production pressure'. The manager needs Sam on side before the next audit in six weeks.
1. Apply adult learning and coaching principles to explain Sam's resistance and plan a coaching conversation.
Read the worked answer
Why Sam resists (adult learning lens)
- Experience as authority: Sam has 12 years of 'what works'. Adults resist change that appears to devalue their experience. Telling Sam he is wrong triggers defensiveness.
- Autonomy and relevance: the policy was imposed without Sam's input. Adults need to see the why and to have some control over how.
- Perceived cost/benefit: Sam sees only the cost (line speed). Until the benefit is real to him, compliance will be superficial.
- Social/professional identity: 'we've always done it this way' protects Sam's status as the experienced expert.
Coaching approach (not instruction)
- Open with respect and curiosity, not accusation. Ask Sam to walk you through the line and where the policy bites.
- Explore the gap: ask what Sam thinks the audit finding was about, and what would happen if a customer became ill. Let Sam articulate the risk.
- Surface the real constraint: is it time, glove supply, sink location? Many 'attitude' problems are actually system problems. Fix the constraint and resistance often evaporates.
- Co-create the solution: ask Sam to propose how to make the policy work at line speed. Ownership follows co-design.
- Agree specific, observable behaviours and a short review date.
- Follow up and recognise progress - coaching is a process, not a conversation.
2. How would you measure whether the coaching worked, and what would you do if Sam's shift is still at 60% in three weeks?
Read the worked answer
Measures of success (leading and lagging)
- Observation-based compliance: structured observations of handwash/glove moments, not just self-report. Sample across shifts and times.
- Gap closure: Sam's shift moving toward the 95% benchmark, with a trend rather than a single reading.
- Sam's behaviour: does Sam model the policy, correct staff, and speak positively about it?
- Staff perception: short pulse survey or conversations - do staff say the policy is workable?
- Root-cause indicators: glove stock-outs, sink queue times, line stoppages attributable to the policy.
If still at 60% after three weeks
- Diagnose before escalating: is it still a capability/constraint issue (supply, layout) or a genuine refusal? Check the data.
- If constraint: fix it and reset the timeline.
- If capability: more practice and feedback, not more telling.
- If refusal: move to a formal performance process - clear expectations, documented support, consequences. This is a management decision, not a coaching one.
- Protect the line meanwhile: interim controls (supervision, verification checks) so food safety is not left to depend on one person's attitude.
- Keep the door open: a formal process can still be paired with a genuine offer to involve Sam in the solution.
Key point: six weeks is enough to show a trend, not to prove a culture change. Report honestly on direction of travel and residual risk.