In our department there was a small team of three people, organising internal training, maintaining the library etc. One of them left and later in a departmental meeting a discussion took place about replacing the missing member. The remaining two guys said that they already have difficulties managing and synchronising themselves and a third person would not help and is therefore not needed. Well, it sounds reasonable so far.
Some days later I was asked by my boss if I would like to join the team, which I denied, because as I had earlier understood, they did not want a third person, even if management thought they needed. (Well maybe it's from the management "idea" that having even two employees working on some topic is risky, because both might decide to leave the company - but three might as well...)
Afterwards I talked to the head of this "education" team. I had denied not of disrespect for their work but because I knew that they didn't want a third person. I was surprised to learn that they had already found a suitable replacement for the missing third member. They were so happy that someone they liked had volunteered. Huh?
Did I get something wrong in the first place, or did they talk unclear, on purpose, so they could choose their third member themselves? The whole story is just strange. Obviously I lack some soft skills in communication...