Dealing with Difficult People and Relationships

What is a difficult person or relationship? Most of us know one when we see one. However, that is not a good definition for an academic. In an attempt to define difficult people, Brammer surveyed 300 participants in six different organizations and came up with the following list of behaviors: “Aggressiveness, lack of clarity, poor listening, avoidance, not being approachable, complaining, negative verbal behaviors, apparent compliance yet masked resistance, negative nonverbal, uncooperative behaviors, information strategies, conversation management, manipulative behaviors, lack of feedback, defensiveness, alibi, indecisiveness, gossiping” (Brammer, 1992). Certainly, Brammer’s list covers most of the situations that you and I have found ourselves facing in the workplace. In this article, first I will discuss looking at how we may be facilitating disruptive behavior. Second, we will look at what the research suggests as effective strategies for dealing with difficult people from a management perspective.

At some points in my career, I marched to the drum of the difficult person. Most of us when faced with a difficult person, resort to acting in similar ways as the disruptive person. Someone yells at us, so we yell back. Someone avoids us, so we avoid them. Someone complains about us, so we complain about them. Obviously this cycle of disruptive behaviors leads us to a quagmire of despair and relationships that cannot be repaired. Obviously (despite how hard this is), the first step in dealing with disruptive behavior is to look at our own behavior. I hate this step. Typically, I feel so justified in my treatment of disruptive people. They deserve the abuse…. Don’t they? However, what the person deserves is not useful information. We don’t get to walk around with a lawyer and judge to make rulings for us on what behaviors are justified. Consequently, the first step is to look at our own behavior and respond differently than “tit for tat.” Choosing to behave differently is the first step in changing a difficult relational pattern. Most of the strategies in this article are alternate ways for you to change.

We all know what the disruptive behavior looks like, now what can we do? The strategies depend on the power you have in the relationship. If you are a manager, typically you have more power because you hire and fire; you decide pay raises, and you assign workload. Sometimes this power imbalance leads to disruptive behavior on the part of those who have less power. Understanding that resistance is communication and seeking to understand that resistance can be enlightening as a manager. As my wise mother used to say, “try walking in their shoes”.

Now, you have some sense of what may be motivating the disruptive behavior, the next step is to behave differently. In 1993, Monroe and colleagues researched 391 (174 female and 207 male) managers in nine different organizations. First managers identified the most common types of disruptive behavior. The top four reported were subordinates who used (a) avoidance, (b) apparent compliance yet resistance, (c) alibis, and (d) relational leverage. Avoidance is when a person leaves either mentally or physically rather than complete the needed tasks. Apparent compliance occurs when the person says they will help and then does not do the work. Alibis happen when the person gives excuses that others or external forces (for example, traffic) kept them from doing the work. Last, relational leverage occurs when the person uses the relationship they have with you as the manager to get out of work.

After identifying the disruptive behavior, the managers reported the strategy they most often used in the situation. The strategies most often reported by managers were (a) forcing (36%), (b) collaboration (29%), (c) minimal coping (21%), and (d) structural strategies (14%). Forcing occurs when the manager states that the work must be completed or the person will be fired. Collaboration happens when the manager attempts to understand the subordinates goals, and the manager explains his/her goals. The two work together to come to a solution to meet everyone’s goals. Minimal coping happens when the manager switches to dealing with tasks only and leaves the relational issues alone. Structural strategies occur when you change procedures or roles to minimize the problems (Monroe et al 1993).

Managers then rated the success of each strategy against the disruptive behavior. Let’s start with avoidance on the part of the subordinate. 92% of managers who used structural strategies found the strategy effective in dealing with the avoider. (See Monroe and colleagues for the rest of the satisfaction with effectiveness strategies.) Only 12% of the managers who used minimal coping to deal with the avoider found that strategy effective.

What about those silent resistors? What about collaboration? Doesn’t everyone just love collaboration? In dealing with the apparent compliance yet resisting subordinate? 43% stated that use of collaboration was effective, and 41% stated that use of structural strategies was effective.

In the case of the subordinate using alibis, all of the strategies seem to have about the same perception of effectiveness (a) 45% for minimal coping, (b) 40% for forcing, (c) 39% for structural strategies, and (d) 32% for collaboration.

Now let’s look at those who try to use the relationship we have built with them against us. 93% of those who use minimal coping stated that it was effective. 61% stated that using structural strategies were effective.

I hope you can see that depending on the type of disruptive behavior, the strategy to use varies. I also hope you can see that having a range of strategies as a manager provides you with alternatives to the “yelling back” strategy that I like so much. The last lesson learned is use structural strategies more. I suspect that most of us don’t use changing the way communication happens in the organization as a strategy. This seems like an important tool to add to your communication.