DO NOT AVOID THE OBVIOUS WHEN DEALING WITH DIFFICULT PEOPLE

Some people are more patient than others when it comes to working with difficult people. These leaders will typically balance the positives someone brings to the table against the negatives – and as long as the scale tips more towards the “good” than it does to the “bad” they will probably tolerate more than an outside observer (OR other employees) might think prudent. Good leaders seek to encourage individual input while guiding the efforts and acknowledging the accomplishments of a group without stifling creativity…maximizing the ability of all to contribute by subtly filtering the more disturbing qualities a difficult person might express and incorporating the positives into the initiation of actions conducive to improving the team. Tolerant leaders tend to focus on results rather than on processes…on contributions to the whole rather than individual recognition – feeling that as long as the objective is achieved why worry who receives the praise? These leaders probably live more in a world of “where can we go?” rather than in one of “where have we been?”  Over time, though, all leaders need to understand how best to “deal with difficult people” by incorporating their (oftentimes) intelligent creativity into a thriving (but easily disrupted) environment while, at the same time, avoiding the perception of paying more attention to the “troubled ones” and allowing the “shining stars” to fade away into the night.

Difficult people often like to speak their mind and get their way. They dislike being told “no” without a solid, rationale reason (and even then, if the reason is not their own, may not accept it easily). Their contributions are often minimized (within a group) by its lack of acceptance (a group does not like a cocky know-it-all or one whom never gives recognition to others) regardless of how valuable the individual’s contribution COULD be. Difficult people tend to talk more than they listen, to act more than they show restraint, and to hide their own inadequacies by dwelling upon everyone else’s “wrongs” or “mistakes” – claiming to be “better than the worst” rather than striving to be better than the best. Rather than continuously raising their own level of performance, difficult people tend to set themselves as the “bar,” downgrading others and forcing them to assume a subservient role or intentionally diminishing their ability to contribute. One characteristic seems to hold true within all situations – difficult people focus on themselves, their perceived abilities, their own actions, their own feelings, and their own “way,” often losing sight of a common goal or the thought reaching a visionary destination together. Recognizing the tendencies that make people difficult is a necessity if one is to channel their negative energy into something that can add value to a team (particularly one that may perceive the individual as disruptive, disturbing, or even dangerous BECAUSE react and respond to obvious negatives rather than seeking or acknowledging any positives that might be brought to the mix). Recognizing the power that difficult people can have over a functioning team is critical BUT an effective leader must act to meld the positive into a team while deflecting the negative…to intentionally demonstrate the value of the difficult person’s contributions to the team’s results and outcomes.

Difficult people are everywhere in our lives. People often chose one of several options when dealing with them – often predicated by past experience and/or learned confidence. MOST people will typically:

• Ignore them (hoping they will go away)
• Minimize conflict by listening to them (whether or not we intend to act on what they say)
• Avoid interacting with them whenever possible
• Resist until we are beaten down enough that we “do things their way” rather than arguing anymore, OR
• Worry ourselves sick about the problem without ever simply addressing the issue.

While selfishly effective (except, perhaps, for the last choice – which is latently disastrous to the effective functioning of a team), do any of these responses really resolve the problem OR are we simply avoiding the obvious – escaping into an internal “safe place” and causing others to silently suffer with us when we ignore the pain and live with the team’s results? To effectively deal with difficult people we must identify a common goal, talk about how we are going to get “there from here,” discuss what road signs we should see along the way to verify the path we choose is going in the right direction, assign ownership (responsibility AND accountability) to actions THEN establish (clearly and concisely) expectations, ramifications if disruptions occur, and establish who is in charge. In that this last action is typically the most confrontational, it must be firmly stated and conditioned by things you are willing to follow-through on (i.e., do not say “this will happen or else” unless you’re willing to follow-through with the promised consequences. Making hollow threats and conditions minimizes both your credibility and your ability to manage.).

Functional teams can (and possibly should) include people who are “different” from all others within the team so that alternative ideas and perspectives can be included within the team’s thought processes BUT it must also remain focused, headed in the right direction, AND have someone monitoring progress to maintain accountability. Do not avoid your responsibility as a leader to “respond to the obvious” by providing that focus, the filter, AND the fulfillment of all team members.