Full report

Case Study #2

Working Around the Problem

The Case

When Idara joined a new unit, she was not new to ADB. She understood the institution and had built a reputation for being reliable, thoughtful, and steady under pressure. She expected the move would give her broader exposure and a chance to contribute differently.

At first, the discomfort was easy to dismiss. Several colleagues had been in the unit longer than she had and were familiar with its history, internal processes, and ways of working. Hana, one of Idara’s peers, was a particularly influential member of the team. She had no formal authority over anyone’s work but played a strong role in shaping discussions.

In team discussions, Hana frequently offered views on issues that overlapped with Idara’s area of expertise. While this was sometimes useful, it also meant that Idara’s technical judgment was not always heard on its own terms and merit. When Idara proposed an approach, Hana would say, “That has already been tried,” or “You may not know the background,” even when the issue was well within Idara’s technical scope.

Information also did not always flow clearly. Idara felt left out of informal exchanges, copied late on messages, or brought into conversations after key issues had already been discussed. To Idara, the pattern felt exclusionary, but it was subtle enough that each instance could be explained in other ways. Because these practices had become familiar within the team, they were easy to explain as habit or workload pressure, or simply the way things had always been done.

Over time, Idara noticed signs that others on the team may also have adjusted around the same dynamics. Some colleagues appeared to wait until Hana was working from home before raising difficult points. A few simply stopped offering views during meetings unless directly asked. Because the work still moved forward, the pattern did not look concerning from the outside. Her supervisor saw completed outputs and a team that appeared to function, but failed to notice the discreet adjustments some people seemed to be making to avoid tension. What looked like stability was partly people working around the problem.

Idara thought about raising the issues she observed, but hesitated. None of this seemed serious enough on its own. Each moment could be explained away. Hana was helpful, experienced, and knowledgeable. Colleagues seemed to have adjusted to her style. Some advised Idara privately not to take it personally. Some told her, “That’s just how she is,” while others commented, “That’s just how things work here.”

The behavior was hard to document. It was not one incident. It was a pattern. She had heard of other concerns being raised in the past, only to fade. She also worried that naming the issue would make her appear overly sensitive, defensive, or unable to manage workplace relationships.

So, she adjusted and focused on delivering her work. But the adjustment came at a cost. Work that had once been energizing began to feel draining. Her focus suffered because she was no longer thinking only about the substance of the work; she was also trying to anticipate how others might react.

Outwardly, she remained professional. Internally, she became more guarded. This added another layer of invisible work to an already demanding role. The constant vigilance affected her confidence, motivation, and sense of ease in the team. She also began coping in indirect ways by limiting what she shared, avoiding certain conversations, and waiting for safer moments to raise points that should have been discussed openly. These choices helped her get through her day, but they also kept the real issue out of view.

The team continued to meet deadlines, and from the outside, little appeared to be wrong. Hana was seen as reliable, Idara remained outwardly professional, and the supervisor saw completed outputs. Yet, something had shifted. People had learned to work around the pattern rather than address it. When Idara eventually raised the concern more directly, it seemed to come from nowhere. To Idara, the concern had been building up for months. Because the harm stayed beneath the surface, the moment it finally emerged felt larger and harder to manage.

Ombuds Perspective

This case shows how a team can learn to work around an unhealthy pattern without addressing the underlying problem. Idara’s concern was difficult to raise because no single incident seemed serious enough on its own. Taken together, however, they affected her confidence, engagement, and sense of ease in the team.

The wider team also became part of the pattern. Some colleagues stayed quiet, others adjusted their behavior, and the supervisor saw a team that still appeared to function. Deadlines were met, meetings continued, and staff remained polite. Beneath that surface, however, trust and participation had become more limited. What looked like stability was partly adaptation.

The case also shows the role of informal influence. Hana had no supervisory authority, but her experience, relationships, and standing in the team shaped how discussions unfolded and whose views carried weight. Informal influence can be useful when it supports mentoring, knowledge sharing, and teamwork. It becomes a concern when it limits participation, discourages colleagues from contributing, or causes ideas to be judged more by who raises them than by their value.

The issue is not only whether anyone intended harm. Hana may not have meant to exclude Idara, and colleagues may not have meant to reinforce the dynamic. However, intent and impact can differ. When concerns remain unspoken, they do not disappear. They continue building up until the moment they are finally raised, when they may appear sudden or disproportionate.

Supervisors may not even see every pattern as it develops. But signs of avoidance, withdrawal, reduced participation, or guarded communication may signal underlying issues within a team. A concern does not have to become a formal complaint before it deserves attention.

What supervisors can do

  • Pay attention to patterns of silence, withdrawal, and reduced participation, or information-sharing, especially when these begin to affect trust or collaboration.
  • Look beyond completed outputs when considering team climate, since a team can continue delivering work while colleagues quietly adjust around difficult dynamics.
  • Create regular opportunities for team members to raise concerns early, before patterns become entrenched or more difficult to address.
  • Encourage teams to discuss working norms explicitly, including how information is shared, how disagreements are handled, and how contributions are acknowledged.
  • Check in privately with staff when participation patterns change or when someone becomes less engaged or more guarded.
  • When a concern appears to come up suddenly, consider whether it may have been building quietly for some time.

What Idara can do

  • Step back and identify the recurring pattern, including how it affects her when access to information is not shared, and how it affects her ability to contribute, working relationships, and sense of ease in the team.
  • Focus on the practical effects of the pattern on work, rather than trying to prove intent.
  • Use concrete examples when raising concerns.
  • Reflect on whether she may be adjusting her own behavior to avoid any stress, such as speaking less, withholding ideas, etc.
  • Consider what conversation may be useful with her supervisor or colleagues to clarify expectations around role, information-sharing, and participation.
  • Seek support from OOMP to think through her options and prepare for any conversation she may want to initiate.

What colleagues can do

  • Be mindful that long-standing experience, relationships, or informal influence can shape how much space others have to contribute.
  • Reflect on their shared responsibility as team members to address unhealthy patterns when they observe them.
  • Reflect on whether their own silence may unintentionally allow an unhealthy pattern to continue.
  • Make room for colleagues with relevant expertise to contribute.
  • Reflect on how their communication style may be experienced by others.
  • Avoid explaining away exclusionary or dismissive behavior as personality, habit, or "the way things work here."
  • Raise concerns early when team members are working around each other rather than engaging directly.

What the organization can do

  • Strengthen the underlying managerial skills needed to support healthy team climate, including active listening, inclusive communication, conflict competence, and early intervention.
  • Reinforce that psychological safety is shaped by everyday behaviors, which affect whether people feel able to contribute.
  • Support a culture where early, informal attention to team dynamics is seen as part of effective management, not as an escalation of conflict.
  • Help supervisors understand that hidden team climate issues can grow quickly when staff have been managing concerns for a long time.