.png)
In dealing with people you find “difficult,” realize that you are someone else’s “difficult” person. Is that your intent? After all, everything you do is logical and makes complete sense to you. It’s the other person who just “doesn’t get it.” (Really?)
Effectively dealing with others requires relating to them from their perspective. Observing others’ behaviour and listening to what they want, rather than pushing them toward where we think they should go, changes the dynamics of any relationship.
If others genuinely believe we support them and are attempting to establish a working relationship for both of us, most people tend to be quite cooperative.
If they perceive we are “pushing” a point of view or attempting to change them in any way, they tend to resist.
Consider this possibility—Most of us treat others as if they are carbon copies of ourselves and get ourselves upset when they react differently from what we expect. This proves we may be less genuinely interested in another’s point of view than we believe.
Is another person’s “difficult” behaviour really “difficult,” or is it just not how we want them to behave? If it’s the latter, then we are coming from a manipulative perspective, trying to change others rather than relate to them.
If Unacceptable Behaviour Continues
If unacceptable behaviour continues, we suggest managers, in a private conversation, confront the person about their behaviour.
By confront, we don’t mean attack. The manager points out specific behaviours and asks the person for their response.
For example, “Are you aware of the effect your behaviour (which has been specifically described) is having on results and on your professional image?”
It is the behaviour that is being criticized—not the person. Specificity is critical, since people cannot do a “concept,” such as “cooperate.” How does one go about doing that? Surely the person doesn’t feel they are being “uncooperative.”
Once the person relates to the issue, the manager offers suggestions of alternate behaviours. Words such as “I’d prefer you to” (followed by a specific description of behaviour) allows the person to hear clearly what is expected.
If others genuinely believe we support them and are attempting to establish a working relationship for both of us, most people tend to be quite cooperative.
The manager offers support for the change and gives direct, immediate feedback when the requested behaviour appears.
The manager might say, “When you” (i.e., act as “devil’s advocate”) in our meetings, it takes us into areas better left to private conversations.
“Young people look up to you and if you appear to be ‘against’ something from the beginning, it slows down introducing change, costing us potential business.
“I’d prefer you privately voice your objection to me so we can deal with it together. I want, and value, your analytical approach, but in a staff meeting it is inappropriate.”
We specifically outline what our next step will be: “If this continues, we’ll have another session together, and if things do not improve, we’ll discuss a different assignment for you.
“We value your expertise and value you as an employee. I’d prefer to work together on this rather than taking further drastic action, but I will do what I think is best for everyone and the whole business. That’s my responsibility as manager.”
Reassure them only if you genuinely value their contribution.
Avoid Value Judgments
Most sincere people are not deliberately attempting to sabotage results. Using fear as a motivator is temporary at best and usually leads to resentment and negative outcomes.
That’s why threats—veiled or otherwise—produce poor and usually counterproductive results.
Most people are already trying to manipulate themselves with fear motivation, so adding to this is of no value and usually makes things worse.
Most people are committed to what they do. If we enter a conversation already believing that a person is “negative’ or “difficult,” this clouds our thinking and minimizes any chance of improvement.
After all, we really do not know if another person is “negative.” We can only assume this by interpreting their behaviour.
Avoid dangerous value judgments. Focus on having the person behave in a certain way rather than suggesting they “change their attitude.” After all, you can’t really see their attitude—just their behaviour.
This is Part 2 of a three-part series.
Dave Mather is a Performance Improvement Specialist at Dale Carnegie Business Group in Toronto. His columns can be read at ept.ms/dave-mather
Find Dave on LinkedIn.
The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 21 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.
