Troublemaker or truth-teller?
Why difficult people might be voicing unspoken anxieties in teams and organisations
We’ve all worked with someone who gets labelled as ‘difficult’. The person who constantly challenges decisions, disrupts meetings, or refuses to go along with the consensus. It’s easy to see them as a troublemaker - someone getting in the way of the organisation’s smooth running. But what if they’re actually saying something important? What if they are the mouthpiece for something the organisation is struggling to acknowledge?
Vega Zagier Roberts, in Isolation, Autonomy, and Interdependence in Organisational Life, suggests that people who are perceived as ‘hard to manage’ often express unspoken tensions within a group. Rather than being isolated problem individuals, they might be revealing anxieties that the organisation would rather not face. Looking at this through a group dynamics lens can shift the way we understand conflict in organisations. Instead of blaming individuals, we might ask: what is this person telling us about the system as a whole?
Speaking the unspeakable
Roberts provides an example of a community drug worker, Miriam, who was seen as resistant and difficult. She refused to follow the clinic’s norms, working outside of formal settings and engaging directly with drug users in the community. Her manager became frustrated with her lack of attendance at meetings and began to suspect she wasn’t doing much work at all. But rather than seeing this as just an issue of personal defiance, Roberts suggests that Miriam’s behaviour reflected the clinic’s own internal struggle. The clinic staff wanted to help drug users, but also found them difficult, chaotic, and resistant to treatment. By engaging with those on the margins, Miriam was exposing the clinic’s limits and its discomfort with that reality. Her presence became an unconscious challenge to the team, which they tried to suppress by labelling her as difficult.
This kind of dynamic plays out in many organisations. A person who consistently raises uncomfortable truths - about poor leadership, systemic inefficiencies, or ethical dilemmas - can quickly find themselves scapegoated. When organisations focus on managing or removing the ‘difficult’ person, they may be avoiding deeper structural or cultural issues.
My own experience of being the ‘troublemaker’
I’ve found myself in this role. Working in an international development research centre, I was part of a programme aiming to help governments improve evidence-based policymaking. While our rhetoric emphasised the complexity of change and the limits of linear, top-down approaches, our internal projects often didn’t reflect these insights. When I questioned why we were applying rigid frameworks to organisational change when our own research suggested they wouldn’t work, I found myself met with resistance.
As I wrote here, during an internal learning session, I critiqued a project’s approach, suggesting that our methods didn’t cohere with what we knew about change. While some colleagues welcomed the discussion, the head of the programme reacted strongly. He publicly dismissed my comments as a ‘diatribe’ and insisted that future reflections be more ‘balanced’. The message was clear: raising certain issues was unwelcome. Over time, I was increasingly positioned as someone causing problems rather than someone raising necessary questions. Eventually, I was overlooked for a promotion, and it became evident that my presence was no longer wanted.
Why do organisations struggle to hear difficult voices?
Farhad Dalal, drawing on Group Analytic theory, argues that groups find it hard to hear voices from the margins because they tend to say things that are psychologically inconvenient. Those on the periphery are often forced to ‘shout until hoarse’, at which point they start to sound shrill and are subsequently easier to dismiss.
In my case, I was challenging a narrative that made the leadership feel competent and in control. To accept my critique would have meant acknowledging uncertainty and complexity, something that can be deeply unsettling as it calls into question one’s identity. Instead of engaging with the substance of my arguments, senior managers reacted emotionally, defending their authority rather than reflecting on the issues at hand.
Seeing the bigger picture
The systems-psychodynamics approach, pioneered by the Tavistock Institute, suggests that those who are labelled as troublemakers are often unconsciously ‘selected’ by their colleagues to express something on behalf of the organisation.
A person who persistently raises concerns about internal hypocrisy might find themselves sidelined - not because they are wrong, but because they are saying something the group would rather ignore. In another example, a manager who struggles to set clear boundaries may find themselves in constant conflict with a ‘difficult’ employee who demands clarity and consistency. Instead of seeing the conflict as an individual failing, it could be understood as a reflection of the manager’s own uncertainties, which in turn might say something about the system.
What can organisations do differently?
Rather than dismissing or marginalising those who challenge the status quo, organisations are better off learning to see these individuals as indicators of underlying tensions. This means shifting from an individual-blame mindset to a systemic perspective:
Ask what the ‘difficult’ person is expressing on behalf of the group. What anxieties, contradictions, or unresolved tensions might their behaviour be pointing to?
Create spaces for open dialogue. Instead of punishing dissent, encourage honest conversations about difficult topics.
Recognise the role of projection. Groups often project unwanted feelings (such as uncertainty, fear, or frustration) onto a single person. Leaders need to be aware of these dynamics and avoid making scapegoats.
Develop collective responsibility. Instead of expecting a few individuals to carry the burden of organisational anxieties, create structures that allow for shared reflection and problem-solving.
Reclaiming the role of the truth-teller
Of course, not everyone labelled as difficult is offering valuable insight - sometimes people are just challenging for the sake of it – which might say something about their own personal narrative. But when someone is consistently pushing back against dominant narratives, it’s worth asking whether they are acting as a container for unspoken anxieties.
For those who find themselves in this position, the challenge is to navigate these dynamics without being consumed by them. Seeking allies, framing critiques constructively, and finding external spaces for reflection can help maintain a sense of perspective.
If we want healthier organisations, we need to move beyond dismissing individuals as ‘troublemakers’ and start listening to what their troublemaking might be telling us.