How do I deal with a team member who refuses to help others?

Every leader eventually faces the moment: a team member who keeps their head down, finishes their own work, but refuses to help others. At first glance, the problem looks personal: a lack of motivation, selfishness, or resistance. The instinct is to fix the behaviour: confront them, adjust their workload, or make collaboration part of their review.

But what if the refusal to help is not primarily about the individual? What if it is a mirror held up to the team and the organisation, reflecting something about the culture, the structures, or the patterns of learning that surround them? In that case, the challenge is not to correct but to reframe: to see the behaviour as a signal that something deeper needs attention.

There is no single answer. Instead, leaders can choose among multiple ways of seeing and resolving.

In this article, we explore three such lenses:

• The Stewardship Lens, which frames the issue in terms of belonging, invitation, and chosen accountability. The work of Peter Block inspires this section.

• The Structural Lens, which highlights how incentives, metrics, and systems shape behaviour.

• The Learning Organisation Lens, which examines deeper systemic patterns, mental models, and shared vision. This section is inspired by the ideas of Peter Senge

Each lens offers its own philosophy, questions, and practices, both for one-to-one conversations and team-level work. None is complete on its own, but together they provide a richer, more nuanced guide.

The task of leadership is to discern which lens best serves the team at a given moment, and how to combine them over time.

The stewardship lens

When a team member resists helping, the instinct is often to see them as selfish or disengaged. The response then becomes an effort to correct or pressure them into cooperation. But stewardship invites us to think differently. It suggests that contribution is not something that can be imposed; it must be chosen. The challenge, then, is not to push harder, but to create an environment where people want to step forward.

This lens reframes the behaviour. Instead of asking, “why will they not help?” we ask, “what kind of invitation would make helping a natural act of citizenship?” Seen this way, the refusal is less a personal flaw and more a signal of disconnection. People give less when they feel unseen, when their gifts are not valued, or when the team feels like someone else’s project. The work of stewardship is to re-convene the team so that belonging, agency, and ownership make generosity possible again.

What follows are five shifts in perspective and practice that help move a team from isolation toward chosen contribution.

1. Shifting the frame: from problem to possibility

When someone refuses to help, the natural instinct is to define the behaviour as the problem. The task then becomes to correct or control. That frame offers clarity, but it also traps us in a cycle of blame and compliance.

Possibility begins with a different question: what might be created if everyone acted as a co-owner of the work? This shifts the energy from deficit to imagination. Helping others stops being about obligation and becomes about participating in something larger than one’s own role.

The power of this reframing is that it does not deny the difficulty; it simply opens a doorway beyond it. We move from “what is wrong with them” to “what could be true for all of us.” That shift often loosens resistance and creates space for new choices.

In a one-to-one: ask: “What possibility do you see for this team if we leaned on each other more?” Then share your own reframe: “I see this moment as an invitation to build more partnership. What about you?”

In a team meeting: open with: “we have focused on who is not helping. What if we shifted the lens, what kind of team could we become if we all brought our gifts to each other?”

2. Accountability as chosen, not imposed

In most organisations, accountability is assigned. Tasks are distributed, owners are named, and responsibilities are tracked. On paper, this creates coverage. In practice, it often produces dependency. People carry out duties because they must, not because they choose to.

Stewardship insists that accountability must be declared, not imposed. When I say “I will own this,” it becomes part of my identity. The accountability flows from commitment rather than compliance. This is especially relevant when someone resists helping. Forcing them rarely produces trust. Inviting them to choose awakens agency.

The question is not “what responsibility do we assign them?” but “what accountability are they willing to own?” When people choose their commitments, they honour them more deeply, because they reflect freedom rather than demand.

In a one-to-one: ask: “where do you most want to take responsibility in this project? What promise would you be willing to make to your colleagues?”

In a team meeting: create a space for each member to declare what they want to be accountable for. Record these declarations visibly, so the group sees that accountability is chosen, not dictated.

3. Belonging over isolation

Refusal to help is often less about unwillingness and more about disconnection. People who do not feel they belong naturally shrink to the safety of their own tasks. Helping others only makes sense when I feel I am part of the “we.” Without belonging, the team is just a collection of adjacent individuals.

Belonging is not a soft extra, it is the soil in which contribution grows. When people know they are seen, when their gifts are recognised, and when their presence matters, they want to offer themselves. Without that grounding, helping feels like a burden.

The task of the leader is not to cajole but to convene spaces of connection. Moments where people can say, “I matter here” and “others value that I am part of this.” Belonging unlocks generosity.

In a one-to-one: ask: “when have you felt most supported here?” and listen carefully. Affirm their gifts openly: “what you bring really matters, even when others do not always see it.”

In a team meeting: begin with a quick round: “name one strength you bring that others might not know about.” Or close with: “what moment today reminded you that you are part of this group?”

4. The power of the question

The questions we ask shape the quality of our relationships. Directives may create compliance, but rarely ownership. Questions open the door to freedom. They allow people to step into contribution by choice rather than force.

Not all questions do this. Questions that test or judge often reinforce defensiveness. But questions that invite reflection about gifts, possibilities, or contributions expand people’s sense of agency. A good question makes the person feel larger, not smaller.

This is especially important when someone is reluctant to help. A directive will likely harden their resistance. A question may create enough space for them to reconsider their place in the whole.

In a one-to-one: ask: “where do you feel your gifts could have the most impact for us? What support do you wish you had when you were last overwhelmed?”

In a team meeting: replace routine updates with ownership questions: “what contribution are you most proud of this week? What do we need from each other to deliver on our promises?”

5. Modelling stewardship in action

One of the most overlooked aspects of leadership is modelling. We cannot ask of others what we are not willing to do ourselves. When someone resists helping, it is worth asking: am I showing the behaviour I expect? If I value collaboration, am I practising it in my own everyday actions?

People rarely shift because of instruction alone. They shift when they see others behaving differently. A colleague who watches their manager step in to support someone, not because it is required but because it is chosen, receives a more powerful invitation than any directive could provide.

Modelling dissolves any sense of hypocrisy. It communicates that we are all in this together and that no one is exempt from serving the whole. That stance lowers defensiveness and raises the likelihood that others will follow.

In a one-to-one: share a recent example of when you supported a colleague outside your role. Then ask: “what is one small act of support you would be willing to offer this week?”

In a team meeting: go first in a “service round,” naming one contribution you will make beyond your usual role. Then invite others to do the same.

Conclusion: When someone refuses to help, it is tempting to focus narrowly on the individual. Yet the deeper work is to shape the culture around them. By shifting the frame from problem to possibility, by grounding accountability in choice rather than assignment, by creating belonging, by asking questions that expand rather than contract, and by modelling the behaviours we hope to see, leaders create the conditions where helping is the most natural choice.

The reluctant colleague is not an obstacle to be managed but a signal. They show us where connection, ownership, and trust are thin, and where the team has an opportunity to re-imagine itself.

The structural lens

When a team member avoids helping others, the reflex is to question their motivation. Are they unwilling, disengaged, or self-centred? Yet often, the deeper explanation is structural. People behave according to the systems around them. If those systems reward only individual achievement, blur responsibility, or overload a few with the burden of collaboration, then focusing narrowly on one’s own work is not defiance, it is the most rational choice.

The structural lens invites leaders to ask not just about personal will, but about design. What do our incentives and metrics encourage? How clear are the boundaries of responsibility? Are our systems fair, or do they lean on a few while excusing others? These are the questions that reveal how collaboration is either supported or undermined by the structures we create.

What follows are five areas where structural design most influences whether people step forward to help or step back into isolation. Each one offers practical adjustments that make collaboration less of an exception and more of a natural expectation.

1. Aligning metrics: making collaboration visible

When performance is measured only by individual deliverables, people naturally optimise for their own tasks. Helping others becomes invisible, at best ignored and at worst penalised. This makes self-containment the path of least resistance.

Structural clarity requires expanding performance metrics to include both individual and team outcomes. When collaboration is measured, recognised, and celebrated, it shifts from being “extra” work to being core work. People begin to see helping as part of how they succeed, not as something that distracts from their goals.

In a one-to-one: explore their metrics. Ask: “how do your current goals connect to the team’s success? Where could helping others be recognised as part of your contribution?” co-create one shared measure they feel able to own.

In a team meeting: introduce a team-level goal such as turnaround times, customer satisfaction, or shared learning that requires mutual support. Discuss openly how collaboration will be measured alongside individual outcomes.

2. Clarifying responsibility: reducing diffusion and loafing

In teams with blurred roles, people often assume “someone else will step in.” The result is diffusion of responsibility, tasks fall between the cracks, and resentment grows. From a structural perspective, withdrawal is not laziness but a failure to assign clear, visible responsibility.

When accountability is visible, people cannot hide behind ambiguity. They know what they own and how it connects to the work of others. Smaller sub-groups can further strengthen visibility, reducing the temptation to stay isolated.

In a one-to-one: clarify the unique value of their role. Ask: “what part of the project would not get done if you did not do it? Who depends on you for that?”

In a team meeting: review responsibilities together. Make task ownership visible to the whole group, using a shared board or tracker. Ask: “where are we unclear about who owns what? What needs to be named?”

3. Designing systems that support fair collaboration

Another structural trap is collaborative overload, where a small number of generous people carry most of the support burden. Others withdraw, not always from selfishness but because the system keeps leaning on the same individuals. Over time, generosity becomes exhaustion.

The structural fix is to design collaboration into the workflow itself. Helping should not be discretionary or heroic, it should be embedded in processes, meetings, and expectations. This creates fairness and prevents hidden burnout.

In a one-to-one: ask: “when are you most likely to be asked for help? Do you feel those requests are shared fairly across the team?” invite them to suggest where systems could redistribute the load.

In a team meeting: audit patterns: “who do we turn to most when things get stuck? Who is not being asked enough? How can we spread support more evenly?” adjust workflows or rotate roles to share the burden.

4. Coaching toward self-sufficiency

A common managerial reflex is to solve team problems on behalf of others. But when leaders always step in, teams never build the muscles to solve issues themselves. People withdraw because the system encourages dependency on the manager rather than peer-to-peer support.

The structural remedy is to coach individuals and teams to problem-solve together. This strengthens self-sufficiency and shifts the norm from “waiting for the boss” to “working it out with each other.” Helping becomes less about compliance and more about capability.

In a one-to-one: instead of providing solutions, ask: “what would it look like if you and your colleague solved this together? What support do you need to try that?”

In a team meeting: facilitate reflection: “what challenge did we face this week, and how did we resolve it? Who helped, and what can we learn from that?” highlight examples of peer problem-solving as successes.

5. Delegating with development in mind

Delegation is often treated as task-shifting, a way to lighten a leader’s load. But effective delegation is developmental. It assigns responsibility in ways that build skill, capacity, and engagement. When people see delegation as growth, they are more willing to step into shared responsibility.

If, however, delegation feels like dumping, withdrawal is natural. People stick to their own work because they feel unprepared or undervalued. The structural fix is to delegate thoughtfully, ensuring clarity, support, and stretch.

In a one-to-one: explore what new responsibility could serve both them and the team. Ask: “what is one area you would like to grow in? How could taking on this responsibility help both you and us?”

In a team meeting: review workload distribution collectively. Ask: “which tasks could shift hands to help us balance capacity and create development opportunities?” emphasise that delegation is about growth, not just efficiency.

Conclusion: The structural lens reminds us that behaviour is shaped by design. A team member who refuses to help may simply be following the incentives, ambiguities, and patterns of the system. By realigning metrics, clarifying responsibilities, embedding fairness, coaching self-sufficiency, and delegating with development in mind, leaders can change the conditions that make collaboration possible.

In this light, the reluctant colleague is not a problem to be corrected but a mirror reflecting the system’s design. When leaders reshape those structures, helping ceases to be an exception and becomes the natural, expected rhythm of team life.

The learning organisation lens

Some behaviours that frustrate us in teams are not personal choices at all but reflections of deeper patterns in the system. A refusal to help, for example, might say less about an individual’s willingness and more about how the team sees its interdependence, what assumptions guide its members, or whether it has a vision strong enough to draw people beyond their own tasks.

The idea of a learning organisation reminds us that sustainable collaboration is not built on rules or pressure but on disciplines of practice. These disciplines invite people to see connections, to keep growing in their own mastery, to question unspoken beliefs, to co-create purpose, and to learn together over time.

What follows are five such disciplines. Each offers a different way to understand why someone might hold back from helping and how to create conditions where contribution becomes natural rather than exceptional.

1. Systems thinking: revealing interdependence

When someone resists helping, our instinct is often to focus on the individual: their attitude, their motivation, their choices. But systems thinking reminds us that no behaviour exists in isolation. People act according to the structures they see around them. If those structures suggest that my work begins and ends with my own task, then staying in my lane feels not only safe but responsible.

This is the narrow view of the system, where each person sees only their part, not the whole. The cost of this narrowness is that interdependence remains invisible. Helping others looks like inefficiency rather than necessity. Withdrawal feels rational.

Systems thinking widens the field. It shows how one person’s output flows into another’s, how delays cascade, and how support upstream prevents breakdown downstream. When people see these feedback loops, helping others stops being “extra” work and becomes an act of keeping the system healthy.

In a one-to-one: ask: “when you complete your work on time, what impact does that have for the rest of us? What happens if you don’t?” help them trace the ripple effects of their choices.

In a team meeting: map the workflow together. Draw the links between roles. Ask: “where do we rely most on each other? What happens when one link falters?”

2. Personal mastery: expanding confidence and freedom

People often avoid helping because they feel safest where they are most competent. Helping a colleague might mean entering unfamiliar territory, where mistakes are more likely. The refusal is not unwillingness but self-protection.

Personal mastery builds the confidence to step beyond one’s comfort zone. When individuals feel secure in their skills and supported in their growth, they are freer to stretch into new roles. Helping then becomes a chance to grow rather than a risk of exposure.

In a one-to-one: ask: “where do you feel strongest in your work? Where would you like to develop further, so helping others feels more natural?” offer mentoring or pairing to build capability.

In a team meeting: create space for members to share what they are learning, not just what they are doing. Celebrate growth as much as outcomes.

3. Mental models: challenging hidden assumptions

Teams operate under unspoken beliefs that shape behaviour more powerfully than any rulebook. A common one is: “if I help others, I’ll fall behind.” another is: “I am only valued for my personal output.” these mental models lock people into isolation, even if they want to contribute more broadly.

Surfacing assumptions loosens their grip. When beliefs are spoken aloud, teams can test them: are they still true? Do they serve us? Making the invisible visible allows for new behaviours to emerge.

In a one-to-one: ask: “what story do you tell yourself when someone asks for help? What do you worry it might cost you?” explore alternatives gently.

In a team meeting: facilitate a dialogue: “what are the unspoken rules about helping here? Which of them strengthen us, and which hold us back?”

4. Shared vision: creating a collective why

When a team lacks a compelling shared vision, people retreat into self-preservation. If I don’t believe in what the team is aiming for, why would I stretch myself for others? Without a strong why, collaboration feels optional, even wasteful.

Shared vision pulls people beyond their own tasks. It is not a slogan handed down, but a purpose co-created. When team members see their own hopes reflected in the group’s vision, helping each other becomes meaningful, not because they have to, but because they want to.

In a one-to-one: ask: “what part of our work here matters most to you? How does it connect with what we are trying to achieve as a team?”

In a team meeting: run a visioning exercise: “if this team were at its best, what would we be proud to be known for?” capture the answers and weave them into a shared statement of purpose.

5. Team learning: building the discipline of reflection

Many teams confuse coordination with learning. Meetings become lists of updates, deadlines, and handovers. Necessary, yes, but insufficient. Without deeper reflection, people never practise the habits of dialogue, inquiry, and collective problem-solving that make collaboration real.

Team learning builds the muscle of thinking together. It means slowing down to ask, “what happened? What do we notice? What might we try differently?” over time, this practice makes helping natural, because people are used to working in openness and mutual reliance.

In a one-to-one: invite reflection: “what are you noticing about how we work together? What do you wish were different?”

In a team meeting: introduce a short reflection round: “what did we learn this week about how we help, or don’t help, each other? What should we adjust next time?”

Conclusion: Through the lens of a learning organisation, a refusal to help is not a flaw in character but a message from the system. It points to gaps in how interdependence is understood, how confidence is built, what assumptions are driving behaviour, how strong the vision feels, and whether the team practises learning together.

The task is not to demand more cooperation from individuals but to reshape the environment so that helping becomes a natural outcome of how the team sees itself. In this light, the reluctant colleague is not an obstacle but a signal. They reveal where the system is underdeveloped and where the next opportunities for learning lie.

Some reflection questions

Questions are not about finding the right answer, they are about opening new possibilities. Each one shifts the way we see the reluctant colleague and, more importantly, the way we see ourselves as leaders. They are not designed to measure or control but to invite.

These are doorways rather than checklists. Some will take you into the culture you are creating, others into the systems you are designing, and others still into the deeper patterns that shape how the team learns. Take them slowly. Let them provoke you. Choose the one that feels most alive in the moment and act from there.

Framing the culture (Stewardship Lens)

1. Where am I framing this as a problem to fix rather than a possibility to create? In practice: Try reframing the situation in one sentence beginning with: “What if this is an invitation to…”

2. Am I inviting people to choose their own accountability, or am I still assigning it? In practice: In a one-to-one, ask: “What part of this project do you most want to own?”

How am I strengthening belonging so that contribution feels natural? In practice: Affirm hidden strengths in one-to-ones; invite recognition rounds in team meetings.

4. How am I modelling the behaviour I wish to see from others? In practice: Share one small act of service you’ve taken, then invite others to do the same.

Designing the System (Structural Lens)

5. Do our metrics and rewards make collaboration visible, or do they push people back into silos? In practice: Add a team-level outcome into your next performance discussion.

6. Is responsibility clear, or are we allowing diffusion where people assume “someone else will step in? In practice: Make task ownership visible on a shared board or tracker.

7. Are we overloading a few generous people with collaboration while others withdraw? In practice: Audit where help is most often sought and redistribute requests.

8. Am I solving problems for the team instead of coaching them to solve them together? In practice: Replace one directive this week with a question that invites peer problem-solving.

Shaping the systemic patterns (learning organisation lens)

9. What hidden assumptions might be driving this behaviour? In practice: Ask directly: “What story do you tell yourself about helping others?”

10. Do we have a shared vision strong enough to inspire people beyond their own tasks? In practice: In a team session, ask: “What would make us proud to be known for when we work at our best?”

Conclusion

A team member who refuses to help is rarely just “a problem employee.” More often, they are revealing something essential about the environment in which they work. Sometimes the issue is cultural, a lack of belonging or invitation. Sometimes, it is the structure, metrics, and systems that make isolation rational. Sometimes it is systemic, unseen interdependencies, fragile confidence, or a lack of a shared vision.

This is why it helps to view things from multiple perspectives. The Stewardship lens reminds us of the power of invitation and modelling. The Structural lens challenges us to design systems that make collaboration visible and fair. The Learning Organisation lens widens our vision to patterns, assumptions, and collective purpose.

None of these lenses requires us to “fix” the reluctant colleague. Instead, they invite us to use the moment as an opportunity for learning. Each act of refusal is a question to the leader: what about our culture, our systems, or our vision makes this behaviour make sense?

Leaders who respond from that depth do more than address a single case. They reshape the conditions of work so that helping one another is no longer an exception, but the natural way of being. And in that shift, a frustrated moment becomes a doorway to a stronger, more connected, more human team.

Thanks to Ioana Bora, a fellow European coach, friend and professional colleague, for suggesting this question in a recent conversation.

The stewardship lens