Vievolve - Difficult People

'Difficult People' ...or are they?

Lynne Kerry

Over the years, I have encountered many examples of attitudes about so-called 'difficult people'. In interviews, I have been asked how I deal with 'difficult delegates'; when working with co-trainers I have been warned that "tomorrow's group will be awkward and obstructive"; I have even seen numerous books and training courses offering help with "Handling Difficult People". So, if it's such a commonly held view, and indeed if there is a market dedicated to 'dealing' with them, why would I want to suggest that there are no such things as a difficult people?

I'm not proposing that it's possible to like everyone all the time, or to accept or like what they are doing. Nor am I suggesting that we can make others change their behaviour. I am suggesting that by gaining a deeper understanding of human differences, values, beliefs and motivations, it is possible to change your response to what you might previously have considered unacceptable behaviour in order to improve client or staff relationships. In practical terms, it makes good business sense, and has applications in areas such as sales, negotiations, coaching and team building.

In what follows, we'll be exploring three key areas:

The different thinking styles which may lie beneath apparent 'difficult' behaviour, and how to recognise them.

Some alternative ways of thinking about difficult people, which can enable you to break the vicious circle which can may result, and create a different response for yourself.

Some examples of how this might be manifest in everyday business situations.

I. Thinking styles

You will probably be familiar with statements like:

"I want them to agree to 'x' but they won't"

"He doesn't listen to me, he's being difficult"

"They should meet me halfway, it's not fair!"

"I explain over and over again what I want, but it never gets done"

It's human nature to assume that because something makes sense to me, it also makes sense to everyone else. The fact is that we all have different ways of experiencing the situations with which we are faced, different ways of storing and processing information. This uniqueness becomes evident through the language we use to describe what we are experiencing and what we notice in our world. These so-called 'filters in language' are not absolutes, and in the majority of circumstances will operate as a combination or pattern of styles. Whilst it is true that most of us will have preferences in the way in which communicate our experiences most of the time, it is also true that they are likely to vary to some extent according to the situation, context or even mood in which we find ourselves. Therefore it is most important to recognise and respond to whatever words and phrases are being used 'in the moment', as the ability to communicate in a similar way helps to build rapport. If you are using the same filters in conversation, it will help you first establish and then maintain rapport. If the filters that you use are different to the ones used by others, you may experience discord and frustration.

The awareness to recognise the filters that you and others use is a first step. Developing your flexibility in the ways you use the filters gives you choice - choices about the response you may elicit in others.

There must be hundreds of filters that we use everyday to translate experience into perception but the following outlines some that can have the most value in the perception of so-called 'difficult people'.

Relationship Filter

When you look at the diagram below, do you notice the fact that all shapes are ...

... Broadly the same

... All the same colour or,

... Only one is on its side?

If you find yourself thinking something like - "They're all the same shape, they're all the same size, or they're all blue" - you are noticing the similarity between them, or ways in which they are 'the same' as one another. However, if you're first response is "one has fallen over", then you are noticing the mismatch, or difference between them.

Of course, neither of these is right or wrong, but they may have consequences if we do not understand what is happening. For example, from the perspective of 'similarity', difference can be viewed as negative and obstructive (the perpetual "yes, but"). From the perception of 'difference', similarity can be thought of as boring or in a rut.

Chunk size (information) filter

This filter relates to our preference for information in conceptual or detailed form.

For example, when asked to describe an office, or meeting room to someone who has not seen it, one person may say - "It's an oblong room, about 4 metres by 6 metres. There are windows along one side, the walls are pale blue, and there is an oval desk with 6 chairs around it and a large wooden bookcase in one corner". In contrast, someone else may say the following about exactly the same space - "It's a bright, airy and modern room". For each person these descriptions are absolutely accurate. One is describing the detail of the room (small chunk information) and the other is describing it in conceptual terms (big chunk information).

The potential implications of this are that someone operating in detail can perceive the conceptual person as vague and woolly, whilst from the opposite perspective detail may be viewed as nit-picky or long-winded.

Reference filter

One way of eliciting information on this filter is to ask the question "How do you know you have done a good job" A person who has a strong internal reference will have an internal measure for answering this question, and may say "I know I have achieved my objectives", or "I feel pleased with the results". A more externally referenced person will take their confirmation from others, and therefore respond with "I get feedback from the team" or "my manager tells me he/she is pleased with what we've achieved"

This filter has particular consequences in the giving of feedback. A manager or team leader who is mainly internally referenced will have no need of feedback from others on how they are performing, and therefore it may not always occur to them to offer unsolicited feedback to members of their team. Hence comments like "He/she never tells me how I'm doing". This will not be a problem for team members who are similarly internal referenced, but may be unsettling or uncomfortable for others who have a stronger external reference.

At the extremes, both these styles can be very limiting. Those who are predominantly internally referenced may be perceived as aloof or uncaring, while those who have a stronger external reference may be thought dependent, indecisive or 'needy'.

II. Vicious or virtuous circle?

A lack of appreciation or recognition of differences in thinking styles can often result in frustration, misunderstanding, time-wasting (as a result of having to do things two or three times instead of once), and even outright conflict. Therefore, through an understanding of the following model you will have a deeper appreciation of the way in which our own (or others) thinking has a direct influence on the way we behave, and the results (or feedback) we get.

If you want to change the results you are getting, either for yourself or in relation to someone else, it is important to understand how this cycle is operating, and where and how to intervene in order to influence the outcome more positively. It is particularly interesting to note that you can intervene anywhere in this cycle, depending on your intention and the other person's current situation.

For example, in relation to another party, you might find it useful to consider the following questions and thoughts:

What would have to be in their thinking for this behaviour to be normal and acceptable to them?

What value set are they likely to be operating from?

If you go into 'second position' with them (in other words, step into their shoes and experience the situation through their eyes, perceptions and feelings), what insights do you get, and what might you do differently as a result of this?

Can you effectively match, pace and lead their emotional state in order to have a positive influence on their behaviour?

From your own perspective, it may be useful to utilise consider some so-called 'empowering beliefs' or generic operating assumptions in order to change your internal response and therefore external behaviour. It is important to remember that these empowering beliefs are not necessarily absolute truth, but acting 'as if' they are true in a particular context can create more choice of behaviour and flexibility of thinking in order to create a different result for both parties. In particular, the following may be useful to bear in mind in 'difficult' situations:

Everyone has their own unique map or model of the world and no one map is any more real or true than another.

The meaning of your communication is the response you get. If you're not getting the response you want, do something different.

There is no such thing as a difficult person, only inflexibility in us.

In any relationship, the person with the most flexibility of thinking and behaviour is most likely to influence situation - if they choose.

Remember, you cannot make another person change - and indeed it is questionable whether you have any right to do so - but you can change what you do and how you are thinking.

III. Some common business scenarios

One of the most serious potential consequences of labelling people as 'difficult' is how it may relate to your overall relationship with them, and in particular to their perceived competence, growth and development.

For example, a report in the well-respected Harvard Business Review describes something called the "Set up to Fail Syndrome". This relates the theory that some managers may unwittingly be contributing to, or even causing poor performance or difficult behaviour in staff, often with the best of intentions. The scenario goes something like this:

The employee loses a client unexpectedly, misses a target or deadline, submits a sub-standard report, or does something else which seems out of character. To compound this, it may also be that the manager and employee have never established a good relationship.

Then ... the manager begins to worry that the employee's performance is not up to scratch

So ... the manager begins to focus more time and attention on the employee. He/she may ask to see documentation which they would not have previously, or check decisions they have made. They may keep a closer eye on how the employee performs at meetings and critiques any comments or suggestions they may put forward. The manager's intention is to boost performance and prevent errors ... but

The employee interprets the manager's behaviour as a lack of trust and confidence in their abilities. They may begin to doubt their own thinking and loose motivation - after all the boss will check it anyway, or just do it themselves!

Then ... the manager interprets this withdrawal as proof or poor performance and lack of co-operation. So, they increase the pressure and level of supervision, double-check everything.

If this cycle continues, the employee may just give up - they have no motivation to make any contribution to the business. Even though the manager is spending a lot of time with the employee, their relationship is far from ideal or downright hostile. Ultimately the employee may leave the organisation.

These perceptions and assumptions, whilst they remain unchallenged or misunderstood, create two 'vicious' circles of thinking, state, behaviour and feedback. They create a self-fulfilling prophecy, even though the manager is well-intentioned.

Now let's consider an individual example, which may strike a chord...

Imagine someone is about to have a meeting with a group of senior managers. The last such meeting was a very uncomfortable experience, and they are concerned it's going to be the same again.

So they may be thinking ...

I'm really not looking forward to this - I just know they're going to be unimpressed by what I have to say and they'll probably ask me a lot of difficult questions"

As a result they are feeling ...

Nervous, unsure of themselves and 'ready for a fight'

So, when they are speaking during the meeting, they...

Avoid eye contact, speak in a flat, monotone voice, find something to 'hide behind' and respond defensively whenever they are asked a question

So, the response they get is ...

Lack of interest, indifference or even outright hostility

And, internally they are thinking ...

"I knew this was going to happen, it's always the same. They never listen to what I have to say - they're just being obstinate and difficult"

In both these examples, the key to changing the perception of 'difficult' behaviour or a 'difficult' person is to break the cycle that sustains it.

"If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got"

So, are they really difficult or just different, and is it worth it to you to find out? Next time you encounter people or situations which you may consider to be 'difficult', I would invite you to bear in mind these four key points:

Know your Outcome
- What do you really want?
- Is it within your control or influence to achieve it?
- How will you know when you have achieved it?
- Does it 'dovetail' with the needs of the other party, i.e. is it a Win/Win?
Increase your Awareness
- What's happening for you/the other party?
- How do you know?
Develop the personal Flexibility ...
- In your thinking/behaviour/beliefs to do something different - if what you are doing currently isn't working!
Conduct the whole process in a spirit of Rapport

In a busy and hectic working environment, these tools will help you to cut through to the core of what's really necessary to increase understanding and influence, and so save time and emotional energy.