In a team setting, how should you handle a coworker who is not doing their fair share of the work, and what is the most professional first step?

Introduction / Context:
Interviewers often ask how you would handle a coworker who is not doing their fair share to test your conflict resolution skills, professionalism and commitment to team results. Employers want people who can protect project outcomes without damaging relationships. This question focuses on the most appropriate first step when you notice an uneven workload in a team setting.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• You are working on a shared project with clear goals and deadlines.
• One coworker consistently contributes less or misses agreed tasks.
• The quality and timing of the project may suffer if nothing is done.
• There is no evidence of serious misconduct such as harassment or fraud.
• You want to act in a professional, respectful and solution focused way.

Concept / Approach:
The best initial response is usually direct but respectful communication. A private conversation allows you to share specific observations, ask open questions and understand any hidden issues such as workload conflicts or personal challenges. It also gives the coworker a chance to correct behaviour without embarrassment. Escalating immediately to management or attacking the person in public damages trust and can make you appear difficult to work with. Professional conflict management starts with clear, calm dialogue at the lowest reasonable level.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Collect specific examples of missed tasks or incomplete work so that your feedback is factual rather than emotional. Step 2: Ask the coworker for a short private discussion at a convenient time in a neutral setting. Step 3: Describe what you have noticed using neutral language, for example by saying that certain tasks are not finished, instead of attacking their character. Step 4: Ask for their perspective and listen carefully, because there may be issues you do not know about, such as unclear expectations or conflicting priorities. Step 5: Agree on a concrete plan to rebalance work, clarify responsibilities and set check in points. If behaviour does not improve after this, then consider involving the manager with facts.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine two employees faced with the same situation. One writes an angry email copying senior leaders and accuses the coworker of being lazy. The second speaks privately, discovers that the coworker misunderstood the deadline and was also overloaded with another urgent task from a different manager. Together they agree how to divide work and inform the manager of the updated plan. The second approach protects the relationship, fixes the problem and shows maturity. This comparison confirms that a respectful private conversation is the right first step.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B escalates the issue too quickly and in a confrontational way that may damage your own reputation. Option C avoids conflict but leads to burnout and does not solve the underlying problem. Option D embarrasses the coworker in front of others and usually creates defensiveness instead of improvement. Option E ignores the impact on the team and signals that you do not take ownership of shared results. None of these approaches matches professional expectations.

Common Pitfalls:
Common mistakes include waiting too long to speak up, complaining to other teammates instead of the person directly or using emotional language that sounds like a personal attack. Another pitfall is assuming bad intent without checking whether the coworker understands the expectations or needs help. A strong interview answer shows that you focus on facts, have the courage to address issues early and only escalate after you have tried to resolve the situation directly and respectfully.

Final Answer:
Speak with the coworker privately to share observations, clarify expectations and offer support before involving a manager.