You are an administrator in a Council Presidency support team working on a complex dossier with colleagues from three other Member State delegations. One colleague, Marta, consistently submits her contributions late, which delays the whole team's work. Other team members have started complaining to you informally, treating you as an informal coordinator. You have no formal authority over Marta. An important submission to the General Secretariat is due in ten days. The team has not discussed this issue collectively.
¿Qué respuesta es la MÁS eficaz?
Por qué esta es la respuesta más eficaz
Response A reflects strong working-with-others competency: it addresses the interpersonal issue directly but constructively, seeks to understand potential obstacles, builds collective ownership of the problem through a team coordination mechanism, and avoids public blame. This aligns with the positive indicators of co-operating across boundaries, supporting colleagues, and handling differences respectfully.
Por qué esta es la respuesta menos eficaz
Response D unilaterally removes Marta's responsibilities without consultation, which is both disproportionate (given no formal authority exists) and likely to damage the working relationship and team cohesion. This is a clear violation of working-with-others indicators: it fails to respect the colleague, imposes rather than collaborates, and does not attempt to understand or resolve the underlying issue.
Las demás respuestas
Response B escalates to formal authority, which may ultimately be necessary, but bypasses direct peer communication first — a missed opportunity to resolve the issue at team level and maintain collegial relationships. Response C is passive and avoidance-based: an indirect hint in a group email is unlikely to solve the problem and fails to engage honestly with Marta, which falls short of the direct, co-operative approach the competency requires.
