Leadership in Practice
The UK’s fastest-growing news and insight platform for the care sector.
Practical advice, strategies and insights to help care sector leaders attract, recruit, retain and develop exceptional teams. Our guidance covers everything from writing job adverts that attract the right people and identifying interview red flags to understanding the cost of a toxic team member, with a range of resources to help you build stronger, more effective workforces.
Every care team has difficult days. A shift begins short-staffed, somebody calls in sick, a medication delivery is delayed and one person receiving support wakes distressed. Most teams can work through this pressure when people communicate, help one another and remain focused on what needs to happen next. But sometimes the greatest strain on a shift is not the workload. It is the person who meets every situation with criticism, sighs, complaints and the certainty that everything will go wrong.
They question every decision, predict failure before a task has begun and tell colleagues there is no point raising concerns because management never listens. When a new employee asks a question, they respond as though the person should already know the answer. When somebody suggests an improvement, they explain why it will never work.
By the middle of the shift, the atmosphere has changed. People speak less, patience is shorter and ordinary difficulties feel heavier than they did at the beginning. One person’s mood has become everybody’s working environment.
Care teams work closely together, often under emotional and operational pressure. People rely on one another for information, reassurance and practical help. This means attitudes can spread rapidly.
One person begins complaining about the rota and another remembers their own frustration. A critical comment about the manager becomes a longer conversation about everything the organisation does badly. Staff enter a room already expecting trouble because someone has told them the shift is going to be awful. The concerns may not be invented. There may be genuine problems with staffing, pay, leadership or communication. However, repeatedly discussing them without seeking a solution can leave the team feeling powerless.
Emotions also affect how people interpret what happens next. Once a shift has been described as a disaster, every delay becomes further proof. Positive moments are ignored because they no longer fit the story the team has begun telling itself.
Some employees are fully aware that they influence the team and use negativity to gain attention, control conversations or undermine colleagues. Others genuinely do not recognise what they are doing.
They may consider themselves honest rather than negative. Perhaps they believe they are preparing less experienced colleagues for reality or saying what everybody else is too frightened to admit. If they have worked in the service for a long time, cynicism may have become part of their professional identity. They have seen initiatives abandoned, managers replaced and promises broken. When somebody announces another change, disbelief feels more sensible to them than optimism.
There may also be difficulties outside work, exhaustion, burnout or a sense that their own contribution is ignored. Understanding this context can help a manager approach the issue constructively. It does not mean the effect on the rest of the team should be allowed to continue.
Managers must be careful not to label every disagreement as a poor attitude. A worker who raises concerns about unsafe staffing, rushed visits, medication risks or unfair treatment is not necessarily being negative. They may be doing exactly what a responsible care professional should do.
Teams need people who question decisions. A workplace where everyone appears positive because nobody feels safe enough to disagree is not healthy. The distinction lies partly in the purpose and pattern of the behaviour.
Constructive challenge identifies a concern, explains its impact and seeks a response. Persistent negativity rejects possibilities, attacks people and spreads hopelessness without engaging in solutions. One employee may say, “We do not have the right skill mix for this shift. How are we going to manage the medication round safely?” Another may announce, “This place is always a disaster. Nobody knows what they’re doing.” Both express dissatisfaction, but only one gives the team somewhere useful to go next.
Before holding a formal conversation, managers should consider whether the negativity is communicating something the organisation needs to hear. Has the employee repeatedly raised a legitimate concern without receiving a response? Are they carrying more difficult shifts than other people? Have they recently experienced an incident, bereavement or significant change?
The worker may feel overlooked for promotion, resentful about inconsistent standards or exhausted from being the person colleagues always call when something goes wrong. There may also be conflict, bullying or unfairness within the team that has not been addressed. This does not justify harmful behaviour, but it changes the conversation. A manager who begins with curiosity is more likely to identify the real problem than one who immediately tells the employee to improve their attitude.
Ask what has changed, what is frustrating them and whether something at work is making it difficult to remain engaged. Then listen carefully enough to separate a genuine organisational problem from a pattern of behaviour the employee needs to change.
General statements such as “You need to be more positive” are unlikely to help. They can sound dismissive and leave the employee unsure which behaviour caused concern. The person may believe they are being punished for raising legitimate issues.
Use specific examples instead. Explain what was said or done, when it happened and how it affected the team. You might say: “During yesterday’s handover, you told the new employees that there was no point asking management for help because nobody would respond. After that, they stopped raising questions and one later said they felt uncomfortable approaching you.”
Focus on observable behaviour rather than describing the employee as a negative person. A person can change how they communicate. It is much harder to respond constructively when their entire personality has been presented as the problem.
Telling someone what to stop doing is only half the conversation. They also need to know what appropriate behaviour looks like.
The employee can raise concerns, disagree and describe difficulties. However, they must do so respectfully, through the correct routes and without discouraging colleagues from seeking help. If something goes wrong during the shift, expect them to focus initially on safety and the immediate response. There can be time later to discuss why the problem occurred.
They should not insult colleagues, predict that people will fail or bring the same resolved complaint into every conversation. Agree on practical changes. These might include raising rota concerns directly with the manager, avoiding critical discussions in front of people receiving care and supporting new workers to ask questions.
Clear expectations protect the employee’s right to speak while also protecting the team from repeated disruption.
Handover has a powerful influence on the mood of the shift. It gives incoming workers their first impression of what awaits them.
A staff member who presents every difficulty dramatically can make colleagues anxious before they have assessed the situation themselves. Important information may also become lost within complaints, personal opinions and criticism of the previous team.
Handover should be structured, factual and focused on the people receiving support. Concerns about colleagues or organisational decisions should be discussed through appropriate channels rather than added casually to care information.
Managers and shift leaders may need to redirect the conversation: “We will discuss the rota concern separately. For now, please complete the information about Mrs Ahmed’s medication and how she has been overnight.” This is not silencing the employee. It is protecting the purpose of handover.
When one person has a difficult effect on the team, other employees may begin gathering to discuss them. This can create another form of negativity, with the original employee becoming the target of gossip and exclusion.
Managers should give workers a safe place to raise concerns while discouraging personal attacks. Ask for specific examples and explain what will happen next. Do not reveal details of a confidential management process simply to reassure the team that action is being taken.
Employees may need guidance on responding in the moment. They can refuse to participate in personal criticism, redirect the conversation or say, “Have you raised that with the manager?” The goal is not to unite the team against the negative person. It is to restore healthier ways of communicating.
New recruits are especially influenced by established workers. They are trying to understand the culture and learn which attitudes are required to belong.
If the first person they shadow complains continuously, ignores procedures or mocks management, they may assume this is normal. Some will adopt the same behaviour; others will decide quickly that they do not want to remain.
Choose buddies and mentors carefully. Length of service alone does not make someone suitable to shape a new employee’s first experience. New workers should meet people who are honest about the pressures of care while still demonstrating professionalism, curiosity and pride in good practice. Realism and hope can exist in the same conversation.
Some workplaces accidentally give their most negative employees the greatest influence. Managers avoid challenging them because they are experienced, popular or difficult to replace. Colleagues learn that complaining loudly is the quickest way to receive attention, while steady employees who solve problems quietly are overlooked.
The organisation may also contribute by failing to communicate, ignoring concerns or introducing repeated initiatives that disappear without explanation.
If leaders want a constructive team, they must respond to constructive behaviour. Concerns should receive acknowledgement, decisions should be explained and people who contribute to solutions should be recognised.
Employees become cynical when organisations repeatedly ask for feedback and do nothing with it. Managers should examine their own credibility before concluding that the team’s negativity exists without cause.
A worker may deliver excellent practical care while damaging relationships around them. Managers sometimes tolerate the behaviour because the person is experienced, reliable in a crisis or willing to cover shifts. They fear that challenging them may lead to resignation.
This creates a damaging message: technical competence excuses behaviour that would not be accepted from anybody else. Great care is not delivered in isolation. How someone communicates with colleagues affects information-sharing, confidence and ultimately the experience of people receiving support.
Performance should therefore include teamwork, professional conduct and the effect an employee has on others, not only whether their individual tasks are completed.
A capable worker who makes everybody around them less effective is creating a performance issue.
One discussion may be enough for somebody who had not recognised their impact. A longstanding pattern may require continued support and clear management. Agree when you will review progress. Notice and acknowledge improvement, particularly when the employee raises a difficult issue constructively or supports colleagues well.
If the behaviour continues, document what is happening and follow the organisation’s appropriate performance or conduct procedures. Expectations lose meaning when managers repeatedly discuss them without taking further action.
The employee should have a fair opportunity to change. The rest of the team should not be expected to absorb the impact indefinitely while the organisation avoids an uncomfortable decision.
Care work is difficult. Teams need space to acknowledge exhausting shifts, poor decisions and the emotional impact of what they experience. A healthy workplace does not require staff to smile through unsafe or unfair conditions. It allows frustration, challenge and honest disagreement.
What it cannot allow is one person repeatedly turning every problem into hopelessness and every conversation into criticism.
Good managers listen for the truth inside the negativity, act on legitimate concerns and then set clear boundaries around how people treat one another. One person can change the mood of an entire shift. With honest feedback, proper support and consistent leadership, they can also learn to change what they bring into the room.
Join organisations across health and social care that are investing in happier, healthier workplaces with the Daily Round Wellbeing Employer programme.
Download our Employer Wellbeing Brochure to discover what’s included, or become a Daily Round Wellbeing Employer today.
Posted by:
K Jadon
Editorial Assistant – The Daily Round
Busy day? We’ve got you covered. Get FREE daily news, practical insights, opportunities and wellbeing content, carefully curated for busy health and social care professionals. Just enter your details below to get The Daily Briefing delivered straight to your inbox.
newsdesk@dailyround.news