4

Difficult People That Cause Conflict

Every working environment has its own difficult people, but somehow it seems that nurses have to absorb a disproportionate share in their jobs. Abusive remarks and insulting behavior from physicians, patients and other nurses can make you feel so angry, helpless and powerless that eventually they eat away at your self

respect. However, you can learn to identify people who are likely to be difficult and you can develop strategies to cope with them effectively.

Begin by thinking of all the people you deal with regularly during a typical day. Now identify one person (in your mind) and complete the exercise below as an outline of the specific problems you are having with that person. Sometimes, describing difficult people can be more elusive than naming them. And it may be

difficult to express in words what people do that bothers us, or what we prefer that they do.

Problems With Difficult People

A behavior I find difficult to handle is

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

I wish that person would

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

A behavior I find difficult to handle is

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

I wish that person would

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

A behavior I find difficult to handle is

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

I wish that person would

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

One of the main keys to dealing with difficult people is to know your behavior. You have to face that the behaviors of persons who consistently push your buttons will not just go away. Wishing that a person would change is a waste of time. Remember, you cannot change other people; the only thing you have control over is how you react to them.

How you react to that person's behavior is the most important thing. Do you look at the floor? Do your palms sweat? Do you cry? Do you retreat from the field? Once you have a clear picture of your behavior, you can decide what changes in your tactics will gain control over difficult encounters.

According to Peter Carbonara there are five grand tactics for handling immediate challenges to your personal dignity, as described below:

ü Calm down. If you start feeling absolutely beside yourself, find an excuse to leave. Come back when you have control of yourself.

ü Lower your voice. The louder the difficult person talks, the softer you answer. The person will have to calm down to hear you.

ü Choose your ground. Make up your mind whether you are dealing with a difficult situation or a difficult person.

ü Guard your perspective. Don't take the behavior personally. Don't internalize the screaming or the complaint.

ü Never cry. Crying is like bleeding; when attackers smell blood, they keep on coming!

[Peter Carbonara, "Fire Me, I Dare You!" Inc 1997; 19(4): 58].

While these measures will help you get through the initial assault, you still need a range of strategies for dealing with them on a long term basis. These steps can help you organize them.

ü Assess and categorize difficult people. This not only puts them in useful perspective but also helps establish emotional distance.

ü Validate your assessment with other people. Can you distinguish some patterns of their behavior? Would it work to speak directly and tactfully to them about their behavior? What degree of risk would there be in doing so? Is taking that risk worth the effort?

ü Plan a strategy for each different category. Since blaming and hoping won't help, concentrate on solving the communicating and coping problems.

ü Practice your strategy. Use a mentor or confidant, role play and say the words aloud.

ü Whenever you see the difficult person, begin to prepare yourself psychologically. In the final analysis, you have to choose. You can accept the difficult behavior, change your response to the difficult person, or terminate the relationship.

General Characteristics

Difficult people have the following general characteristics, as described by Connie Podesta:

    „ They know what they are doing.

    „ They get some satisfaction out of being difficult.

 „ They meat many people this way, not just you.

 „ They have been acting this way since they were young.

We often give difficult people:

    „ Permission to treat us badly.

 „A reward that causes them to continue the negative behavior.

[Connie Podesta. Life Would be Easy if it Weren't for Other People (Plano, Texas: Preston Publishers, 1996), 144].

Preventing Difficulties

If you and I thought and acted alike, we'd never have any difficulties between us. We'd operate in perfect harmony. Difficulties arise only among people who see the world and tackle problems differently. Many individuals, therefore, try to surround themselves with similar, like-minded, agreeable people in order to avoid differences and avoid difficulties.

When individuals shun differences, a lot can be lost. Often, differences add a little spice to life. Different perspectives bring fresh ideas, creativity and innovation. Without differences, an organization will only have "yes men and women." An organization without differences could become feckless and boring.

As differences can be viewed as valuable and appealing, they can also be accompanied by difficulties. From this perspective, difficult people can be challenging. The key to dealing with difficult people lies in developing good working relationships with people who are different. How is this done? Harvard professors Roger Fisher and Scott Brown provide several suggestions, which are discussed below.

v Separate relationship issues from substantive issues. When staff members at work disagree, two outcomes are in doubt; (1) what decision will be reached, and (2) how the individuals will feel about working together in the future. The first question involves the substantive issue_how the content of the dispute will be resolved. The second involves the relationship issue_how the individuals will deal with each other as people. You can win at one level and lose at the other; get what you want substantively, but you make an enemy.

On the other hands, you may not obtain what you want substantively, yet strengthen a working relationship. To disentangle the two issues, explicitly separate your working relationship with the other person from whether you agree with or approve of his or her viewpoint. An example would be, "I will treat this person well whether or not I like what he or she thinks or does."

v Be unconditionally constructive. Many people deal with difficult people in the same way those people treat them: by reciprocating what they receive. This may be called an "eye for an eye" policy. If the other person yells at them, they yell back. If the other person snubs them, they ignore the other person. If the other person insults them, they insult that person right back. The eye for an eye policy is based on a traditional approach to justice. Unfortunately, in a modern organization, it is largely ineffectual. Why? Because the "victim" often is damaged as much as the perpetrator.

Reciprocation sets off a negative spiral and doesn't resolve anything. It just elicits more of the same difficult behavior. So, what is the alternative? Try being unconditionally constructive. That is, being committed to having a good working relationship if the other person reciprocates. There are several reasons to consider this alternative.

u If the difficult person is being irrationally angry, are you better off responding angrily or responding reasonably? If you respond angrily, all you produce is a heated battle. If you respond reasonably, you're less likely to do something rash or foolish.

u If the difficult person won't listen to you, are you better off ignoring that person or trying to understand him or her? The more you listen to and know about that person, the less you "shoot in the dark" for a solution and the more effectively you are able to deal with that person.

v Beware of partisan perceptions. Each of us sees the events of our lives and other people's behavior from our vantage points. Thus, we see only "part" of the whole. We tend to think, nevertheless, that our perspective is accurate and representative of what's occurring. Unfortunately, there are at least two sides to every story and many ways to view every incident. At the end of a hard week, for example, a boss and a staff member reflect on life in their organization.

Each sees things a little differently. Where you stand on an issue depends, therefore, on where you sit. In other words, how you think about people depends on your position. When we judge difficult people, we often forget that our perceptions of them are only partial. Yet we defend, or become "partisans" of, that person.

v Balance reason with emotion. By responding impulsively and emotionally to a difficult person usually only worsens the relationship, especially if the person is making you angry. A good working relationship with a difficult person requires a reasonable approach. A few suggestions to balance emotional and rational reactions to behavior that upsets you might include:

u Take a break or ask for a short recess. Go for a walk, get a drink or otherwise interrupt your build-up of emotion. You might even ask to adjourn your meeting and arrange to reconvene on another day.

u Count to 10 if an official break is not possible. That disrupts your upward emotional spiral and gives you a chance to rethink the situation.

u Consult a third party. If you feel heated about your relationship with someone, ask for a reaction from a neutral party. You could be overlooking a partisan perception.

u Acknowledge and talk about your emotions. Say, "Excuse me, but this is beginning to make me angry." Or explain precisely what is upsetting you.

u Accept responsibility and apologize if an argument erupts. Say: "I regret that we're having this misunderstanding, and I'm sorry for my part in it. If I have misinterpreted what you were saying or done anything to upset you, please let me know.

u Prepare yourself when you know an emotional situation is likely. You might think about how you want to act in an upcoming encounter with a difficult person and actively elicit the appropriate emotions within yourself.

v Be trustworthy. Working relationships are better among trustworthy people. Individuals who can be counted on to keep their word are trustworthy. Trustworthiness is not an objective measure of honesty and reliability. Trustworthiness can be improved by taking promises seriously and making an effort to fulfill them.

v Consult before deciding. When people work closely together, what one person does usually affects others. Consulting merely involves letting someone know that you are considering and soliciting input about a particular matter and that you are taking that input seriously. When you consult others before making a decision, they feel as if you see them as important, as a meaningful player in the decision-making process.

v Use persuasion, not coercion. When people are being difficult and you have more authority than they do, it is tempting to force or coerce them to do as you wish. But compliance through coercion only provides short-term gains and long-term losses. People resent being coerced and eventually express that resentment in angry outbursts or acts of revenge. Coercion creates competition to see who will "win," and methods to create win/win solutions are overlooked.

Rather than solve difficulties, coercion usually just perpetrates or escalates them. If people continue thinking, talking and attempting to persuade each other of what's best, options and alternatives will surface and eventually a win/win situation will prevail.

v Accept and deal seriously with difficult people. It's tempting to scorn and reject people who don't fulfill our expectations. When disappointed, we become critical. Often, we slam the door on communication and give up on problem solving. We need to remember that the difficult behavior of many people is simply a small dot on a large background. Be sure to keep that background in mind.

Let the offending person know you are aware of his or her positive qualities. Even if the person is a support worker, he or she is also a human being and worthy of basic respect. Treating people with acceptance and respect, even if their behavior is difficult at times, provides the groundwork for improvements.

v The importance of changing you. Unless people are willing to change, change is unlikely. You may believe things would be better if only the other person would change. You certainly can try to change difficult people. But think about your past experience; have you ever found it easy to change someone?

Probably not. People resist being changed. You can't reach into their minds and change how they think. In truth, the person you can control most readily is yourself. You have direct access only to your own thoughts, body, speech.

[Roger Fisher and Scott Brown. Getting Together: Building a Relationship That Gets to Yes (Boston: Houghton-Muffin Publishers, 1988), 53-59].

Difficult Modes of Talk

It is easy to deal with someone who wants what we do and does what we want. We usually consider people "difficult" only when we disagree with them. But conflict isn't always unpleasant. You probably know several people who act and think differently than you do, but you like and respect them anyway.

So, why then, do we experience some people as difficult when we conflict with them? The explanation lies in how they express their different viewpoints. Certain modes of expressing an opinion are especially annoying. They evoke negative emotions in listeners, and those emotions create hostile responses that can increase conflict.

Psychologist Virginia Satir identifies five ways people air their opinions when disagreement exists. The more stress people are under, the more consistently they employ their customary mode of self-expression.

„ Blaming. People who use the Blamer mode assume that they are right and you are wrong; they are innocent and you are guilty; they are good and you are bad. They exaggerate what's going on by using words like: "every, always, never, nobody" and "nothing" to make accusations or threats. They give orders. Their body language is threatening. They frown and scowl. They also stress key words very strongly, such as, "You simply don't consider what anybody else in the unit may want. You always do things your way!"

„ Placating. People using the Placator mode are overly eager to avoid offending anyone. They praise excessively, plead and cajole. They hedge even the smallest request heavily. Their body language can be described as wide-eyed, smiling and affectionate. They praise excessively and may say things like, "How wonderful!" or "That's really great!"

„ Computing. People into the Computer mode use generalizations and abstractions rather than personal references. They try to relay emotionless, neutral messages. They use minimal body language, are poker-faced, have a flat tone of voice and gesture very little. A typical Computer response would be, "Let's not react emotionally. Let's try and understand the basic principles and establish precise standard operating procedures here."

„ Distracting. People in a Distractor mode don't want to face the disagreement directly, so they skip from one approach to another. They may joke about the conflict or talk at length about minor issues, forgetting the major issues still unresolved. Often they seem disorganized, even panicked, as if they don't know how they want to proceed. Sometimes they cycle between several of the other modes, as first Blaming, then Placating, then Computing. A typical response could be, "I can't believe you did this!"

„ Leveling. This approach is telling the truth about what you perceive, think, or feel to the best extent possible. It calls for facing a situation as directly and as personally as you can. The Leveler breakes through facades to get at what's really happening and why. Leveling is characterized by absence of the other modes, there's no fault-finding, fault-avoiding or evasion of the feelings or real issues involved. This type may involve revealing the hidden agenda saying, "What I really think about this issue regarding Dr. Smith's request is that he needs to discuss it with the administrator first."

[Virginia Satir, The New Peoplemaking (Mountain View, California: Science and Behavior Books, 1995), 60].

Suzette Haden Elgin suggests several strategies for responding to difficult people who frequently use one of the above communication modes:

ü Blaming someone who is blaming you will create a confrontation.

ü Placating someone who is placating you creates a wishy-washy, "after you, no, after you." This can result in an undignified delay.

ü Computing with someone who is computing also creates a delay, only more dignified and significant.

ü Distracting when someone else also is distracting builds avoidance on top of avoidance, creating a sense of panic.

ü Leveling with someone who is leveling with you generally leads to greater mutual understanding, compromise and new ideas for solving the problem.

So, your first decision is whether the mode being used by the difficult person is something you want to encourage. If it is, match that mode, otherwise choose another mode for responding.

When you don't know which mode to choose, maintain the Computer mode until you have enough information to make a reasonable and reasoned choice. Doing so will draw the other person into that mode, which generally is safe. Why? Because many times, people are triggered into their habitual mode when they feel extreme stress. They are upset and not consciously aware of what they are doing. As a reflex, they automatically start blaming, placating, distracting or disclosing.

What do they fear?

„ When people feel helpless or powerless, they snap into the Blamer mode to regain their loss of control.

„ When people fear others will be angry and reject them, they snap into the Placator mode to regain their approval.

„ When people feel alarmed by the intensity of their own or others' emotions, they snap into the Computer mode in an attempt to bury those emotions.

„ When people have no idea how they feel about a situation, they snap into the Distractor mode to avoid taking a stand of any kind.

„ When people cannot tolerate the vagueness or phoniness of a situation, they snap into the Leveling mode to bring real feelings and issues out in the open.

Once you know the other person's mode, you can choose your own. So, if you want

¢ a delay, use the computer or distractor mode.

¢ to make the decision yourself, first use the placator mode, to trigger a placator response in the other person, and then decide. 

¢ the other person to decide, just level and say so.

¢ the conversation to be honest, shift to the leveling mode yourself.

[Suzette Haden Elgin, Success With the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishers 1995), 88].

Knowing about and recognizing communication modes is very helpful when you deal with difficult people. Many systems exist for categorizing individuals into one type or another. But it is possible for you, as well as for others, to shift from one communication mode to another depending on the demands of the situation.

Managing difficult communication modes is preferable to labeling yourself or another person permanently, as a particular type of character. You may want to consider different communication modes as different dance steps you can shift into when the music changes. Just don't assume you or anyone else dances to the same tune all the time.

Common Profiles

At one time or another, you can expect to have some of the common profiles, and even hostile persons described below, cross your path. Profiling their leading characteristics and understanding what triggers their behavior can help you figure out how to best deal with them. Branson has summarized his classic list as detailed below:

v Sherman tank. They are hostile people. They are insensitive to any feelings but their own. Abusive, abrupt, and often, intimidating. They blaze away arrogantly at personality and behavior and charge at you, their chosen victim. They can be as mean and vicious as their style is overwhelming.

This tremendous show of power can confuse you into a state of enraged tears or helplessness, both mentally and physically. They act out a strong need to prove to themselves and others that their view of the world is right.

Since you do not understand how their over-aggressive behavior affects other people, they usually achieve their short term objective at the sacrifice of long term relationships. So, what are some of the tactics you can use? Keep in mind, tanks burn enormous amounts of fuel fast. Crying, arguing with, or attacking the Sherman tank refuels their energies. So does performing before a crowd.

Therefore, give them time to run down. Just let them verbally run out of gas. Especially, if other people are present, say their names loudly if they are out of control. Walk to a place where people cannot hear what they are saying. They will follow you. If possible, sit down. People are less aggressive when seated.

If they refuse to sit down, maintain an eye-to-eye contact. Hold your ground until you can state your point of view. Sherman tanks have so deep a need to be accepted that, if you do not humiliate them, they will even make friendly conversation at the end of a confrontation. No matter how hard it is, listen. That gesture means you have gained their respect. It means you have won.

v Snipers. The other hostile aggressive type is more skilled at targeting victims than Sherman tanks are. Usually, with smiles on their faces, they take potshots at people with carefully aimed innuendoes and digs. One of the most common places that staff nurses encounter Snipers is in reports. Here, they depend on social rituals to protect them from retaliation. They use your respect for keeping peace in the group to keep you quiet.

Snipers possess a strong sense of how others should think and act with unrealistic expectations of other people. However, they have lots of excuses for their shortcomings, and they attack someone else whenever they feel threatened. Refuse to be attacked indirectly. Whenever they attack you, one-on-one or in a group, bring the issue out in the open. Confront Snipers immediately.

Demand clarification, "What do you mean by that statement? Please explain." If a Sniper persists, turn to the group, "Anyone else feel that way?" If there is a real problem, let the Sniper know you will take action when they communicate it to you appropriately.

v Exploders. These people usually begin the conversation in a friendly, pleasant enough manner, then suddenly break into temper tantrums to get their way. Because your guard is down and you are not ready for an attack, this tactic can be very effective. Exploders' temper tantrums are attempts to regain control of situations that make them feel in harm's way. Others often describe them as overemotional, supertouchy and irritable.

Unable to articulate just why they feel threatened, their initial impulse is to become angry, to suspect others, or to blame them. Find out what characteristics or behaviors, in yourself and in others, make Exploders feel endangered, so you can avoid these behaviors in such persons' presence.

Once they do explode, however, they need time to vent their fears and misgivings, even if they seem to go on forever. If they do not run down in a reasonable amount of time, interrupt them quickly and call a halt. If you are in charge, call for time out or an intermission. If you can walk away, leave them standing there. If they follow you, you can go to a place where other people cannot hear them and sit down if possible.

If they explode on the phone, softly say, "Please call back when you have calmed down." Then hang up. Another option: once that person has calmed down, have a heart-to-heart talk.

Point out that you understand that it's not always easy for someone to control his or her temper but that type of behavior is not acceptable in a workplace. If an employee assistance program is available, a suggestion that the person see one of the counselors would be a good idea.

v Bulldozer. These know-it-alls radiate personal authority. Thorough, accurate thinkers, they are competent and highly productive. However, they do not encourage other people's ingenuity nor do they easily accept other people's judgments. Rather, they are condescending and, to add insult to injury, are often right. This humiliates the people around them, and they become angry and immobilized. Once bulldozers make up their mind, they are hard to dissuade, even if they are wrong.

Bulldozers view situations as win/lose or right/wrong. The Bulldozers' security rests in knowing the facts and understanding how they fit together. They believe that they can control all pertinent factors and that fate is irrelevant. To keep Bulldozers from burying you under their command, do your homework and come prepared. These individuals want exact answers.

If you are unspecific or unprepared, they will dismiss you as incompetent. Take the offensive by serving feasible alternatives into their court. Get them to consider the consequences, "What if we did it your way and this happened?" Get them to look at the contingencies: "How would that work if....?" or "What would happen under these circumstances...?"

v Balloons. Ranging in character from braggarts to tyrants, these know-it-alls are indeed full of hot air. Having collected bits and pieces of information from all kinds of sources, they pontificate on all sorts of subjects they really know little about. They do not really intend to deceive anyone, they really believe they speak with authority. Balloons are very curious people who like to be "in the know." They have an overwhelming desire for others' admiration and respect, and want to be seen as important persons.

Balloons are basically harmless persons once you understand they are not experts. No one has confronted them with reality, so they presume that they have spoken the truth. State the facts as an alternate version when you are alone with them. Give them an out. Be prepared to intervene if you are the true expert.

v Clams. These individuals react to any situation by closing down. They respond with a grunt, or nothing, just when you need their perspective, ideas or opinion. They use silence as an offensive as well as a defensive weapon. For some unresponsive people, being quiet is a way to avoid revealing themselves or their fears, a way to remain safe. For others, silence is a calculated aggression.

Clamming up becomes a way to hurt you by denying you access to desired information and by implying they distrust how you will use it. Look for body language clues like frowning, folded arms, staring or glaring, before clamming up. If this happens, ask open-ended questions, then wait. For instance, ask "Is there a problem?" If this does not work, ask a question you know they can answer comfortably. As a last resort, the following.

As a last resort, shift the burden of decision to them: "I'll go ahead as I have told you unless I hear from you otherwise by Friday morning." Be persistent. If Clam opens up, be an attentive, active listener. Be patient. The initial conversation may not be related to the topic you want to discuss.

v Negative Nabobs. Naysayers have one hundred reasons why it can't be done. "It won't work." "We tried that last year." "They'll never let us do it." These individuals sap the potential in themselves and the rest of us. They often have unresolved childhood problems. While they like to be the center of attention, they feel powerless. It is not always their intention to be obstructionist; they truly believe that barriers they perceive cannot be overcome.

To cope with these skeptical pessimists, demonstrate your own realistic optimism while you acknowledge your vulnerabilities. Explore alternative solutions and let them articulate what the worst consequences could be. Acknowledge their arguments and persuade them to work with you to overcome their perceived problem so that the project or activity can move along.

Make the person part of the solution rather than an additional problem. Often rooted in these individuals are long-term personality factors that are beyond the ability of the manager or colleague to overcome. In that case, professional help is needed.

v Complainers. These malcontents string "ands" and "buts" in mournful litanies of endless needs and deficiencies. They whine, sing-song, and find fault with everything. They keep warning you about something that has gone wrong with the world. Regarding themselves as powerless to manage their working lives, Complainers feel that any problem is beyond their control to solve.

They want you to fix it for them, not with them. They usually point out real problems, but they do it in a way that irritates other people. Sometimes, all that the constant complainer needs is someone who will listen. This individual continues to complain about everything and you may hear the same complaint over and over.

One way to minimize this kind of griping is to pay more attention to the people who complain. The reason for their complaint is often their desire to be the center of attention. By talking to them, asking their opinion, and praising their good work, you may satisfy their need for attention and give them less reason to gripe. Most complaints are signals that shouldn't be ignored. Even if a complaint seems to have no validity, check it out anyway.

You don't always have all the information and you may discover facets of the situation that you were not aware of. Do not allow Complainers to dwell on past grievances; interrupt them once you have the main idea. Acknowledge that you understand by pharphrasing the main points.

Don't remain silent if you disagree with them, but keep to the facts and don't become defensive. Even though Complainers want you to play "Mr. or Mrs. Fix- it," encourage them to take part in solving the problem. Tell the Complainer what can or can't be done realistically. Analyze the situation with them and work on a list of solutions. Focus on one of them, articulate a plan and follow-up.

Expect frustration; they will want you to do it all but, remember, they need to be a part of the solution. Overall, there will always be gripes and grievances. Sometimes you see a problem and sometimes you don't.

You find out only when someone complains. A complaint may be your first hint of an impending problem, a reminder of an ongoing situation that hasn't been tended to, or it may just be a staff member letting off steam. But you don't know until you check it out.

v Over-sensitive people. No one likes to be criticized, but most people accept corrective criticism. Some people resent whenever you make the slightest criticism of their work; they punt and get defensive and accuse you of picking on them. Be gentle and diplomatic with them.

Begin by praising parts of assignments that they have done well. Then make some suggestions about how they can do better in unsatisfactory areas. A staff member's fear of being criticized can make him or her too cautious in all areas of work. Rather than risk an error, these individuals check and double check what they do.

A few additional guidelines to help overly-sensitive staff members overcome their fears include:

ü Assure them that because of their extensive knowledge in the field, their work is usually correct the first time and doesn't have to be checked repeatedly.

ü Point out that occasionally errors are normal and that they can be caught and corrected later without reflecting on the ability of the person who made the errors.

In most cases, overly-sensitive people have the expertise and do make good decisions; they may need your reassurance to help convert their thinking into action.

v Stallers. During planning sessions, these deceptively agreeable persons lead you on with hints and vague references to problems which various options raise. Finally, they agree with your plans only to let you down by doing nothing to realize them. Three weeks later, when no action has been taken, they listen sympathetically to your frustration and pleasantly point out complications that have kept them from moving. Carrying out decisions distributes resources that are often tied to peoples' wants and hopes.

This poses a terrible dilemma for Stallers. Since they don't want to hurt anyone, they don't do anything. They claim to value what is "right" over what is "expedient." So, they sit on plans that don't do something for everyone. The Staller may doubt the leader's ability or loyalty to lead the group.

In dealing with Stallers, help them come to grips with specific problems, once the issues are out in the open. If it's you, acknowledge your weakness in an unemotional way to win their confidence before refocusing their attention on the matter at hand. If the problem is not with you, have the Stallers decide it in detail, rank in order possible solutions, and reduce their number to two feasible alternatives. This way, everyone's wishes are granted.

The process makes the choices, and the Stallers don't have to. Point out the preferred alternative's best qualities, then link it to beneficial outcomes for staff members, patients, and anyone else the Staller can agree is important. Always follow up to prevent the Staller's second thoughts from taking control and to reinforce the decision.

v The "Nice" bull. Some people create conflict needlessly. But many more avoid it any way they can. They listen, they do more favors, they're sensitive, they're "nice." They desperately believe that all their niceness will make up for the inability to look someone in the eye and say, "No, I don't agree." They don't know how to deal with the things people say and do when their feelings are hurt.

Their solution is to devise various strategies on being nice. It isn't too hard to fool other people, and even yourself, with this strategy, for a while. The sacred bull will tell you nothing is worse than a fight. People don't always get along. And unless they are able to settle their differences constructively (which requires acknowledging them), the conflicts grow bigger, until eventually they explode. In fact, conflict avoiders create bigger conflicts by avoiding smaller ones. The least sophisticated form of conflict avoidance is complaining to other people, instead of to the person with whom you have the difference.

Read this scenario:

Nancy and Barbara are managers in the same outpatient clinic area. Barbara is always insinuating that Nancy's team doesn't work as hard as hers and that she doesn't know how to be a manager. Barbara and the clinic supervisor are friends and always joking and gossiping together.

Nancy observes this behavior and every night when she comes home from work, she tells her husband about it. Occasionally her husband will try to offer constructive criticism and suggestions like, "Talk to Barbara about it," or "Say something to your supervisor."

Nancy sees this as evidence that her husband doesn't know how bad the problem is. If she says anything to Barbara at all, it just makes the problem worse. So, Nancy has decided to smile and make the best of a bad situation.

Lately, her husband has been losing patience and says, "Why don't you just quit?" So, Nancy finds herself talking less to her husband and more often on the phone to her friend, Joyce.

It is clear that Nancy has a hard time dealing directly with Barbara. She tries to handle the conflict by talking about it with someone safer, her husband, and then with Joyce. But talking about Barbara so much only makes Nancy angrier. Yet she is weakening whatever motivation she has for doing something about Barbara by dumping it onto her husband and friend.

Whenever Barbara offends her, Nancy fumes. Her internal processing of the incident has more to do with how she will tell someone about it than with how she would deal with Barbara. On the rare occasions when her facade cracks, she attacks instead of saying something productive, such as "You're always implying my team doesn't do any work!" instead of "Barbara, what exactly did you mean by that comment?" Barbara does not respond positively, and how could she? She's only being asked to feel guilty. So, she ignores Nancy's attack.

Nancy's beliefs are reinforced. The next time she complains to her husband or Joyce, she would say, "I tried talking to Barbara and it didn't work at all." If Nancy really could ignore Barbara, as she sometimes pretends, there would be no problem. But she actually makes her the star of her quality time, thoughts and conversation. This is not being nice, it is being self-destructive.

The only way out of this situation is for Nancy to deal directly with Barbara. Before she can do this, she must recognize that her own beliefs (conflict is bad; it's useless to say anything to Barbara; I've already tried that and it didn't work) are responsible for her misery as much as anything Barbara has done.

To feel better, Nancy only has to make it harder for Barbara to push her around. Her husband and friend could help, but they probably are conflict avoiders too. They don't want to hurt Nancy's feelings, so they are "nice" to her. They listen, even if they don't want to. Then they probably go to their friends and talk about Nancy.

Nancy's real problem is the lack of skill in dealing with conflict. Nobody ever learns this until they have to. In the short run, other strategies are easier. The hard part about breaking the pattern is not learning the skills but believing that you need them. The "nice" bull is large enough to stand in the way of all logic.

v Passive-aggressor. This prima donna's motto is "Strength through weakness." This is the kind of person who will say, "Yes, yes, yes," when asked to do something, and then never produce. Intelligent and able, this individual is strangely unable to get anything done without a tremendous amount of hand-holding on your part and anxiety on his or hers.

This person may also have serious personal "issues" best sorted out in psychotherapy. A key to handling this passive-aggressive prima donna is confronting him or her early and candidly, in as unthreatening a way as possible. Often the real problem behind such behavior turns out to be something that can be negotiated or dealt with in a compromising effort.

An example would be the situation with Susan, the Director of Nurses in a Labor and Delivery area. She had trouble getting a long time manager to change some of the procedures that had worked in the past but weren't part of the new strategic plan. Susan said that after she would carefully explain to the manager what she wanted her to do, she would agree and then go back to her old practices. Finally, she forced a confrontation.

Susan found out that instead of thinking she was too smart to follow her instructions, the manager believed that in her rush to do things her way, she was neglecting her ideas. Susan stated that "she felt that she was not listening to her," and after contemplating it for a while, thought she probably wasn't. Once the situation was out in the open, Susan became optimistic that she and the manager

would be able to work together rather than be at cross purposes.

v The old-timer. He's been with the organization since day one, and worked with you through all the lean times and changes. You've always treated him like a brother. The problem is that he thinks he's paid his dues and that his long tenure exempts him from the rules.

He comes in when he feels like it, clocking in late and putting in a minimum effort. Everybody speaks warmly of him, but it's been a long time since anyone used the word productive in doing so. Even though this person has been faithful and loyal for a long time, you need to make a decision if you can afford to keep this low producing person on your team. This individual should not be given a dispensation from the rules everybody else has to follow, no matter how indispensable you think he or she is.

If you do not want to let this individual get away with something you wouldn't permit anyone else, the only solution is to clarify and confirm to him in no uncertain terms what your expectations are. Most staff members will choose to toe the line rather than quit. Those that leave are probably doing you a favor.

v No doubt, you may have another dozen to add to the list. But the best one is saved for last, the Backstabber. We all have been affected at least once in our career by such a personality. It doesn't matter if you are male or female, it can occur. The venom spreads by a series of shared secrets and betrayals. The informant usually starts by stating, "Don't tell anyone, but I think you ought to know...." She or he goes on to undermine a boss, peer or colleague. By the time the involved person gets the information, the damage may already have been done.

Backstabbing can also take other forms. It can be as simple as a "friend" gossiping about information you shared confidentially, or it can be more devious. For example, a supervisor could agree to supply you a good reference; then when a prospective employer calls, she says that the hospital has had some problems with you. Backstabbers often have feelings of jealousy, feel threatened or have low self-esteem.

Women not only set themselves up to be betrayed easily, they tend to react to it more personally. Men accept that, at times, business is unfair. They are not happy about it, but they accept it. If men are betrayed, they will most likely confront the person who did it, then move on because it profits them to do so. They may never trust that person again but will go on without him or her. They learn their lesson, confront the matter, put their guard up and go on.

When women are betrayed, especially by other women, usually they experience a range of deep emotions. These include hurt, anger, rejection, bitterness and even stupidity for having put themselves in the situation. To change this cycle women must develop skills that will help themselves and each other. They must learn which women can be trusted and which women cannot be. They need to confront, forget and move on down the road.

Deborah Jacobs has additional level-headed options in dealing with backstabbers for both males and females:

ü Confront your feelings. Many individuals who have been betrayed will deny it. It is so painful that they pretend it didn't happen. They let it "eat away at them." If you have been betrayed, confront the situation, admit to yourself that you have been fooled, and admit that you feel stupid. Then confront the backstabber. Even if you do not get an apology, it is a relief to level with someone. You will have expressed your feelings and emotions and you can get on with your life.

ü Confront the backstabber. Often, individuals take too long to deal with betrayal. You need to be conscious of it and stop it before it gets worse. Do not analyze it. You are wronged, and you should get it out in the open. Confrontation must be diplomatic, not hostile. You must be specific about what was said and how you perceived it. Sometimes the confronted person will show true remorse.

Either the individual did not realize what he or she was doing, or did not foresee the consequences of his or her actions. Many backstabbers will use the "no knowledge" routine, swearing that they do not even know what you are talking about.

Without being emotional or accusatory, present the details. "I've heard you don't think I'm paying enough attention to this patient." You then might say, "I want to talk so we can correct this problem. Can you tell me more?" Do not expect the confrontation to change the backstabber's behavior; it rarely does. It will put the person on alert that you will not be manipulated. Once you have had your say, let it go and move on down the road.

ü Become less vulnerable. Be careful about what kind of information is revealed at work. You may provide unwittingly ammunition for backstabbing. Do not share personal and detailed accounts of events that may come back to haunt you. You never know when your most trusted confidant will "tell" or be in a position to supervise you in the future and, all of a sudden, "know too much."

Share no secrets and make no best friends in the work arena, if at all possible. Build your relationships gradually until you are sure the other person puts the same value on it that you do.

ü Strengthen your alliances. A highly effective antidote to backstabbing is to shore up your contacts throughout the organization. Then when rumors circulate, people will step forward, or at least be skeptical of gossip. Good communication channels also help you pick up on negative information at an early stage. Once you understand how the backstabber operates, you may be able to avoid becoming a target.

ü Hold on to your values. Most people value open, direct, sharing relationships. If they are betrayed, the betrayal hurts so much that they tend to get bitter. They vow they will never put themselves into that position again, and that means not being so open, direct, and sharing. The worst thing about backstabbing is not that it is so painful, but that it makes you give up things you value. It is important to stand up and not let the backstabber take away something you value in yourself. Be willing to fight to maintain that and not withdraw.

[Deborah Jacobs, "Disarming a Backstabber" Working Woman 1995; 2 (4):51].

Clearly, the difficult behaviors stated above could occur in any organization. Human relations problems crop up wherever people must work together. Focusing attention on difficult behaviors, specifying what they are, and identifying how they might be changed are key steps in handling them. It is also important to be flexible in your communication modes, examine your contribution to the difficult behavior pattern and encourage desirable behaviors.

Women Working With Women

One of the most difficult challenges in many work areas is dealing with so many women. Although many may not admit it, groups of women working together can pose unique problems. Judith Briles, author and speaker, has explored the roots of unethical behavior among women and has found that

...in many instances it is not deliberate, rather, it is an unconscious reaction to and result of low self-esteem developed in childhood. This low self-esteem has caused women to feel inferior to men, anxious and doubtful of their abilities, fearful of female competition and envious of female success and power.

She gives several suggestions in maintaining a professional approach to working with women:

ü Be honest with yourself. Take a good look in the mirror. Review your relationships with other women. Admit the times when you have been less than straight forward during conflicts. Recognize that you probably have betrayed and not supported other women, although not deliberately.

ü Raise your self-esteem. Learn to change the reaction of being jealous and envious. Any time you feel negative about another woman, step back and examine the facts. Is your reaction a logical result of a particular situation, or does it result from envy? Do you want to resolve the problem, or be destructive to the individual? If you answer "yes" or "maybe" to the last half of either question, you need to take action on yourself.

ü Become a positive role model. The role models presented to most young women are either dependent nurtureres or "iron maidens." In most organizations, dependent nurturers do not get very far, so many women have opted to be iron maidens. These women can be strong and dangerous. They are unwilling to share power with other women. They are motivated by fear, jealousy, uncertainty, and insecurity.

Women must change this role model. As more women raise their level of self-esteem and learn the skills of "fighting fair," they will provide positive examples of how women can work with each other in a spirit of cooperation and support. It is important that women work toward developing confidence in themselves, extending a hand to help others, communicating with each other the lessons they have learned and taking a risk to be open and frank.

No matter how badly they've been hurt, women can claim the gift of compassion for themselves and others. They need to build a strong and supportive network that will not tolerate covert action, one that supports and rewards overt behavior.

[Judith Briles. Woman to Woman: From Sabotage to Support (Far Hills, NewJersey: New Horizon Press, 1987), 125].

Communicating With Generation Xers in the Workplace

Generation Xers may not necessarily be difficult people, but promise to be different people. According to Bruce Tulgan, Generation X is the post-baby boomer generation of Americans in the workforce today. Born between 1963 and 1977, they account for 33.6% of the 125 million reported in the United States workforce, as of 1996.

So who exactly are the Generation Xers? Generation Xers are searching for the same thing most people are searching for; success and security. The problem is that nobody knows what success and security are going to look like for the next generation to come. So, the Xers are remapping the way to security and picking up the bits and pieces of success along the way.

Xers are moving from one new experience to the next, aggressively seeking new marketable skills and knowledge, relationships with people who can help them, and create challenges that allow them to collect tangible proof of their ability to add value to any workplace.

Xers know that they cannot rely on established organizations and institutions to be the anchors of their success and security. No one in the generation X group expects to base his or her career on a long-term affiliation with one established organization. They know that the only success and security that they can hope for are those which they build for themselves and within themselves.

They believe in their abilities, skills and in themselves. They are flexible workers prepared to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances and they usually get the job done, whatever that job happens to be on a given day. Generation Xers feel that to succeed in today's workforce there must be ability to seize new opportunities to add value and grow personally at the same time.

So, how do Generation Xers deal with communication and information? The most ironic misconception is that they have short attention spans and do not deal well with information. They do think, learn, and communicate differently than staff members of previous generation, because their minds were shaped by the information revolution.

Instead of negatively focusing on their communication style, other staff members should maximize their unique comfort and skill with information by making some slight adjustments in their communication practices, remembering that Generation Xers have an appetite for information and learning.

A profile of the Generation X worker of the future is described below:

 „ Flexible, ready to adapt to new staff members, challenges and circumstances

 „ Comfortable with information and technology

    „ Outside the box thinker and worker

    „ Independent

    „ Wants to manage as much of his or her own time as possible

    „ Goal-oriented

    „ Entrepreneurial

    „ Creative

    „ Eager to prove himself or herself

    „ Wants to see results every day

    „ Tries to invest in self and create security from within

Bruce Tulgan recommends four keys to effective communication with Generation Xers in the workplace:

ü Maintain open lines of communication. Managers need to schedule time every day or several times a week for brief detail-oriented communication sessions to review projects; provide updates on issues; establish and adjust work goals and deadlines; monitor results and answer questions and solve problems.

ü Build a rich information environment that facilitates ongoing learning. Provide multiple learning resources in diverse media; encourage the Xers to set their concrete learning objectives in the context of structured self-study programs; and allow the Xers to process information and meet learning objectives at their own rapid pace.

ü Encourage everyone in the organization to be a teacher. Create a learning environment by making teaching a part of every person's job. Teaching should not draw core personnel away from their tasks; rather, teaching should enhance productivity all around. Xers are great at learning by doing, defining problems, engaging their innovative powers and coming up with creative solutions.

ü Challenge Xers with new projects demanding fresh skills. Expose Xers to diverse facets of the organization by allowing lateral moves to new skill areas. Armed with new skills and motivated by the learning process, Xers will gladly assume new responsibilities and meet challenges with greater productivity and initiative.

[Bruce Tulgan. The Manager's Pocket Guide to Generation X (Amherst, Massachusetts: HRD Press, 1997) 3].

Encouraging Desirable Behaviors With Difficult People

Individuals respond better to praise than to criticism. That is why it is important to track the positives of what people do. Individuals are willing to work harder for someone who recognizes and appreciates what they do well than for someone who picks at whatever they do poorly.

In the exercise below, try to think of three behaviors that a person you consider difficult performed last week:

1._____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

2._____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

3._____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Now, let's examine the ways you can convey that a desirable behavior pleases you. Helen Hall Clinard identifies the following nonverbal communication, words and actions that people use to express appreciation:

Nonverbal                                 Words                                     Actions

communication

Smiling                                        Saying "thank you"                   Giving a gift

Nodding                                     Telling someone else about it    Buying a drink

Giving a thumbs up                     Saying "good,"                         Inviting the the                                             "bravo," or "terrific"                  person to lunch

Shaking hands                            Giving a message of                 Designating a new                                            appreciation                            new job title

[Helen Hall Clinard. Winning Ways to Succeed with People (Houston, Texas:Gulf Publishing, 1995), 55].

These methods of expressing appreciation aren't applicable in all situations. They are merely alternatives for letting someone know that you are aware of a particular behavior and like it. Now look back at the list of "positives" you identified in the previous exercise. Did you let that person know you noticed and like each one?

But you might think, people won't change or improve unless their shortcomings are pointed out. Praise only entrenches the status quo of individuals. Not necessarily. Granted, giving praise isn't always easy or even desirable, especially to someone who is usually difficult.

Praise sometimes is perceived as insincere, patronizing, false, manipulative or a way of buttering someone up. Some individuals even think that these efforts breed complacency or raising false expectations. No wonder people underuse praise. But if used properly, praise can be effective. What makes the difference between praise that works and praise that backfires?

„ Sincerity. You must genuinely believe that what you are praising is a "positive." Avoid phony praise.

„ Specificity. Your praise must be concrete, not vague. An example would be, "I found your report easy to follow" is much more specific than "good job on the report." Specific messages are helpful and believable.

„ Disclosure vs. evaluation. Praise that describes personal experience is better than praise that evaluates the other person. If you're not an expert on the kind of behavior you're praising, your evaluation may be inaccurate or unappreciated.

Effective praise, therefore, clearly states:

    - the specific behavior you like

    - how this behavior is helpful

    - how you feel as a result of this help