Scenario: Missing Participants (2025)
Tags: Action Learning, ActionLearning Coach, Team Coach, WIAL, WIAL Action Learning, WIAL Talk
Trackback from your site.
Comments (19)
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tags: Action Learning, ActionLearning Coach, Team Coach, WIAL, WIAL Action Learning, WIAL Talk
Trackback from your site.
Melissa Davis
| #
As an Action Learning Coach, I send a welcome email to the group or cohort with a brief introduction, what to expect, and the session dates and times. I note that their participation is crucial, and they should let me know if the selected dates and times do not work for them. Understandably, emergencies happen, and after the first missed session, I would send an email to check in with a reminder of the next session. If they continue to miss sessions, I would speak with the coordinator or contact person for the leadership program and share my concerns. I will also express my concerns if I do not receive a response from my initial check-in emails or if their absence disrupts sessions and the group cannot move forward.
Reply
ET
| #
In addition to what Melissa Davis has written here, I would also talk to the two people who do not show up routinely to find out what are their commitment and thoughts to the project, what were the reasons for their no shows, and how do they plan to work with the other 6 people on the critical corporate problem. Basically, to understand what are the real problem for them not able to show up.
Then, I would invite everyone in the team (whether it’s a short in person or online meeting) if they have noticed the no shows; how have the no shows impacted the project so far, and how are they, as a team, going to do about it?
At the meantime, I would update the coordinator or contact person for the leadership program what’s going on, see what his/her thoughts are, and how can I support them.
Reply
Valentino Baguios
| #
As the Action Learning coach, I would first observe the impact of the absenteeism on the team’s dynamics, participation, and problem-solving process. Then, during a session where attendance is again an issue, I would pause the discussion and ask a reflective question to the group, such as:
“What is the impact on the team when some members are not consistently present?”
“How does this affect our ability to learn and make progress on the problem?”
These questions help the group surface the issue without singling out individuals, encouraging them to reflect on shared accountability and commitment—both core to leadership development.
If the issue persists, I would escalate it outside the session by privately informing the program sponsors or coordinators. Since this is a six-month leadership program tied to critical corporate work, there are organizational expectations that may need to be reinforced outside the Action Learning space.
Reply
Wenyue He
| #
Prior to the Action Learning session, I will discuss this with the sponsor and PP to see if it will affect this session and let the sponsor decide on any personnel or schedule adjustments.
If there’s still an absence on the day, I’ll start by saying, “Some members are absent today. How can we make the best use of this meeting to move the topic and learning forward?” This allows the team to decide on the best way to divide labor for the discussion. After the discussion, during the reflection phase, I’ll ask the team, “How can we keep the absent members in the loop and help them catch up on what the group did in their absence?”
Reply
Kim Ketel
| #
I believe it would be best to first discuss the matter with the team manager, as he or she might be able to address it. However, it is not within my responsibilities as an Action Learning coach to intervene in such issues. Therefore, I will proceed with the session as planned
Reply
Stina Öhman
| #
In planning with the sponsor, I would emphasize the importance of consistent participation and clarify expectations upfront. I would also raise this with the team in the initial session, inviting them to agree on norms for attendance.
If someone is absent, I would ask the team: “I notice someone is missing—what’s the impact on us as a group?” If the pattern continues, I would facilitate a deeper team reflection: “What can we do to ensure full participation?” and “How can we handle the ongoing absenteeism and what actions do we as a team feel are appropriate?”
If absenteeism persists despite team-led actions, I would then bring the issue to the sponsor’s attention, as it may indicate a structural or motivational challenge beyond the team’s control.
Reply
Min Ge
| #
As an Action Learning Coach, before the session get started, I will first find out from the programme sponsor or PP the purpose of the team members joining the team and their willingness to develop. When I find that two of the team members are unable to attend, I will give timely feedback to the programme sponsor or PP.
For the other members of the group, I will ask in the action learning session, “How will this affect our ability to move forward on the topic if two members are unable to attend?” “If these two members continue to be unavailable, do we have any solutions?” “If these two members rejoin halfway through, what can we do to bring them up to our speed?”
Reply
Rickey Collado
| #
This scenario reflects a real challenge I encountered while leading an Action Learning cohort. From the outset, I took proactive steps to set clear expectations. I sent a welcome email to all participants outlining the importance of attendance, active participation, and mutual accountability—key elements for a successful Action Learning experience.
When attendance issues began to arise, I addressed them promptly. I reached out individually to those with inconsistent participation to better understand their circumstances. I recognize that life events can impact availability, and I approach these conversations with empathy and flexibility.
In one case, after an open and respectful dialogue, a participant and I mutually agreed that it would be best for them to withdraw from the cohort due to their inability to commit the necessary time. This allowed the individual to prioritize their current responsibilities while preserving the integrity of the learning process for the group.
In another instance, a participant expressed a dismissive attitude toward the sessions, stating they had “better things to do with their time.” Given the potential impact on group morale and engagement, I escalated the matter by contacting their supervisor to address the behavior constructively.
Setting clear expectations from the beginning is critical, but equally important is holding participants accountable in a way that supports the learning environment. As coaches, we are responsible for upholding the integrity of the process and ensuring that every session remains productive, respectful, and aligned with the principles of Action Learning.
Reply
Eric Kamst
| #
First I would talk to the two participants who are routinely absent. And use the same principles we use in Action Learning to let them find out what’s keeping them from participating. Then, still according to the Action Learning principles, they would have to have to make a list of possible solutions and let them arrange a meeting with the sponsor of the leadership program as first action.
Then I would let the participants write down how they defined the problem causing their absence and came up with a solution, took action to solve it and reflected on what they learned about themselves and Action Learning while going through this process. And then ask the participants to send it to the sponsor of the leadership program together with their request for a meeting on their further participation.
Finally, in a joint meeting with the two absent participants and the sponsor I would discuss if there are possibilities to solve the problem and let them rejoin the full team. If this is not possible, a plan should be made for the further development of these two participants to join another team later on, and the preselection of participants should be reviewed. Was an important factor overlooked?
This approach is based on my belief that an Action Learning Coach should approach every problem in an Action Learning way.
Reply
SIYI YAO
| #
As the action learning coach and the program owner, I would,
1. Private Check-ins: Reach out to the absent members individually to understand barriers (e.g., workload conflicts, personal issues). If internal, discreetly consult their managers to clarify priorities.
2. Reaffirm Team Norms: Facilitate a team session to revisit ground rules, emphasizing how each absence impacts problem-solving and peer learning. Use questions like: “How might we hold ourselves accountable while supporting each other?”
3. Adapt Flexibly: Co-create solutions (e.g., asynchronous contributions, adjusted deadlines) but insist on a renewed commitment. Document agreements.
4. Escalate Strategically: If patterns persist, engage the program sponsor to address systemic conflicts (e.g., leadership’s mixed signals on development vs. operational duties).
Reply
Lam Vo Be Hoi
| #
As the action learning coach, I would
1. Have individual follow-ups
Speak privately with the two members who are often absent to understand the reasons, share expectations, and find ways to support or adjust accordingly
2. Help the team recognize the consequences and build consensus that this is an issue to address by asking
– What does the team notice when some members are frequently absent?
– How does this affect our progress and the quality of solving the problem?
3. Encourage the group to generate solutions by asking “What can we do to ensure full participation from all members?”
4. Let the team create their own shared rules and commit to them by asking “What ground rules can we agree on to ensure full attendance?”
Reply
Emmanuel Ossom
| #
1. I will first ask the team whether anyone else has noticed who does not attend the meetings regularly. Surely, some responses would confirm a notice of this unexpected behaviour
2. I will then ask what the impact of the non-routine attendance at the meeting by the two members is on the group. This will certainly elicit some insightful responses.
3. Based on the responses in step 2 above, I will ask the group: “Who has the next question”? Perhaps this will lead to many questions and responses, including one that may suggest we contact those two members to understand their situation, rather than making assumptions, as their participation is also critical to the success of the project.
4. The rest of the group may contact the two absent members immediately via phone to ask them the following questions: “How often do you want to attend our meetings, and how does it impact the progress of the team’s work? This question alone will help reveal many issues preventing their regular attendance.
5. Depending on their responses, we can deduce whether they want to drop out or be maintained. In case they want to continue participating in the team’s work, our next question to them could be: “How does your regular attendance impact the team’s project, and how is it important to you and the rest of the team for the success of its project?
6. In the unlikely event that they want to drop out, we would also better understand why, and it would help the group to know how to proceed. The next question would then be: “How does the discontinuity of the two members with the team affect its progress? This will tell whether the group can continue as a six-member group or co-opt two members to replace them.
7. Based on the response to question 6 above, we may know what sort of members we need to replace them and the criteria for their selection and onboarding. Then the next question could be: “What do we consider in selecting two ‘replacement members’ and how do we get them?
Reply
Melissa Huang
| #
As an Action Learning coach, I would not solve the attendance problem for them. I would make the problem itself the team’s most important leadership lesson.
My 3-step plan is to guide the team to solve it themselves:
Make the Problem the Curriculum. At the next meeting, I will frame the attendance issue as the team’s official challenge. I’ll state: “For the next 30 minutes, our problem is: ‘How do we, as a team, address our inconsistent attendance to ensure we succeed?'”
Coach the Team to Action. I will facilitate a mini-Action Learning session on this new problem. My questions will move them from complaining to creating a concrete, team-owned action plan. For example: “What is the specific impact on our work when members are absent?” and “As leaders, what is the most responsible action we can commit to taking before our next session?”
Manage the System in Parallel. While the team works on its plan, I will:
Check in with the absent members supportively to understand their barriers.
Inform the program sponsor, framing this as a powerful, real-time leadership lesson for the team.
This approach ensures the resolution is not just a quick fix, but a profound lesson in accountability and team dynamics that serves the core purpose of their leadership development program.
Reply
Trista Wang
| #
As an Action Learning coach, I’d take the situation as a learning moment.
I’d ask the team:
What happens to our work and learning when people aren’t here consistently?
How does this impact our progress and commitment as a team?
Letting them reflect usually surfaces the real impact and shared accountability. And I’d invite them to create their own solutions – What can we do to support full participation? or How do we help members catch up if they miss a session?
Besides, I’d check in privately with those absent to understand their situation, and also update the program sponsor. Since this is a leadership program tied to real business work, the organization has a stake too.
Finally, I’d frame it back to the team: leaders often face missing voices and uneven commitment. How we handle it here is part of the leadership lesson.
Reply
Julio Benigno Julongbayan
| #
As an Action Learning Coach, my primary responsibility is to the process and the group’s ability to function as a team. Routine absenteeism is a disruption to the group dynamics and the learning process, so I would address this directly within a session through an intervention.
I would ask the present members questions such as: ‘How is the repeated absence of these two members impacting the team’s ability to solve the problem?’ or ‘What does this attendance pattern mean for our shared commitment?’
If the group reveals indifference or a lack of investment, I would intervene to check their alignment with the problem urgency. However, rather than me approaching the Sponsor to suggest changes, I would coach the team to decide on their own course of action. I would ask: ‘Given the current participation levels, how do you wish to proceed?’ or ‘How does the team want to manage the relationship with the Sponsor regarding these constraints?’
This approach ensures I remain neutral and do not solve the ‘attendance problem’ for them. It empowers the attending members to take ownership of their team composition and holds them accountable for the success or failure of the project.
Reply
Kirsty Foster
| #
This situation with absentee group members is tricky and not uncommon. Even with the most dedicated of groups and organizational involvement there can be a draw for group members to prioritise or respond to incoming asks during an expected action learning session.
I would a number of approaches. The first being to contract with both the client and the group to encourage and impress the importance of consistant attendance. As a coach I would also be ready to pivot and handle absent team mebers and group members stepping out of sessions. With the group I would surface non judgemenally what is happening – saying something like ‘I am observing the are working with a smaller group than expected, how is this impacting the groups work’, or this could be lightly included in a more structured intervention using the tolls of asking what the group is doing well, what could the group do even better – and if they didn’t surface or name the absenteeism – raise it myself.
Having inconsistent numbers in a group is impactful but somethimes unavoidable despite best coaching contracting and group management so I would aim to create the most productive, valuable session despite disruptions if they are unavoidable. In review I would name this with the client as an element that would have given a richer partcipation and problem solving experience.
Reply
taweepong pawachalotorn
| #
First, I would bring the issue to the team rather than handling it solely as a performance problem. I would invite the group to reflect on questions such as: “What impact does inconsistent attendance have on our learning, trust, and ability to solve this critical problem?” This helps the team recognize that attendance is not just an individual issue but a collective responsibility.
Second, I would have a private, respectful conversation with the two members who are frequently absent. The purpose would be to understand the root causes—whether they are facing workload conflicts, unclear expectations, lack of commitment, or other barriers. I would listen carefully and avoid assumptions, while reinforcing the importance of full participation in action learning.
Third, based on those conversations, I would work with the individuals and, if appropriate, the program sponsor to realign expectations. This may include clarifying time commitments, renegotiating roles, or agreeing on consequences if attendance does not improve. Action learning requires commitment; if someone cannot commit, it may be more responsible for them to step out.
Finally, I would guide the team to establish clear agreements going forward—around attendance, communication, and accountability—and periodically reflect on whether those agreements are being honored. This approach not only addresses the immediate issue but also strengthens leadership capability and team maturity over the six-month journey.
Reply
Jeanne van der Meulen-Sloots
| #
As a coach, I will clearly communicate in advance to the project leader/client the importance of participants’ attendance at the sessions. I will also ask them to emphasize this in their communication and contact with the group. If needed, I can provide suggested wording that can be communicated to the group.
If, during the sessions, two participants are structurally absent, or at least absent more often than present, I will raise this with the client. My primary question will be to understand the reason for their absence. I believe it is the responsibility of the client to determine and judge whether these reasons are valid. As a coach, I can inform the client about the potential consequences this may have for the program and the learning process.
As a final step, I could personally reach out to the absent participants, but only if the client agrees to this approach
Reply
Martine Klein Robbenhaar
| #
As an action learning coach, I would handle this in a structured, inquiry-based, and accountability-oriented way, staying true to action learning principles.
The participants are asked for the action learning session, so their input and commitment seems to be needed? I would therefore not ignore the pattern of their absence.
Perhaps you could raise the issue with the whole group, neutrally and factually, for example:
“I’ve noticed that two members have not been present regularly. Since this is a six-month commitment tied to a critical business issue, I’d like us to examine what this means for the team and the project. It seems important to explore what impact this is having on the team and the project.”
This avoids shaming individuals while making the impact visible. Rather than problem-solving immediately, I would coach through questions, such as: How does inconsistent participation affect our ability to deliver on the business challenge? What responsibility does the team have to address this?
This keeps ownership with the team rather than the coach. Then I would return to the initial contracting for the action learning sessions. If this was not made explicit at the start, I would facilitate the team in re-contracting.
Reply