Abstract
Every project has them—the stakeholders who just won't listen to reason or refuse to let others speak. They constantly interrupt and try to force their own opinions and views on others. Their continual sniping erodes morale and destroys productivity. They smile, and then pull the trigger from the bushes. Their seemingly easy going natures erupt in sudden, violent flashes of anger.
But you still have to work with them every day. What drives these annoying and disruptive behaviors? And what can you do about it?
Using a guided design structure, this paper provides help to peel back the behaviors and uncover the underlying motives and intentions, the fears and thinking processes, and the basic needs that drive such individuals. Common patterns of behavior that signal danger will be identified. Also included in this paper are a range of techniques that can help to defuse conflict and hostility, reduce the disruptive impact of annoying communicators, and protect the sanity of your team, while still delivering outcomes, building relationships, and enhancing the ability to influence and lead.
Drawing on the neurosciences, ancient wisdom, and modern leadership theories, this paper will provide fresh insight into dealing with challenging individuals, and will provide inspiration to enhance personal communication capabilities.
Introduction
Every project has them—stakeholders who simply won't listen or refuse to let others speak—team members, managers, clients, or suppliers who constantly interrupt or try to force their opinions and views on others. Their continual sniping erodes morale and destroys productivity. They smile—and then pull the trigger from the safety of the bushes. Their seemingly easy-going natures erupt in sudden, violent flashes of anger. They're disruptive and rude—some deliberately so—others perhaps unaware of the impact they have on those around them.
And you have to work with them every day.
The “conversational leadership” approach (defined in Oschadleus, 2009) proposed a structure within which to communicate in such a way that parties focus on safe dialogue, rather than eliciting defensive behavior (expressed in either fight or flight responses). Through understanding the underlying patterns of behavior that give rise to specific actions, and reframing our interpretation of those behaviors, we are able to chose a desired, rather than a reactive, response, which ultimately leads to more productive outcomes.
This paper extends the concept by considering the common, annoying and disruptive behaviors that afflict projects, and then by identifying potential interests underpinning those actions. The paper forms the foundation for a guided design session in which participants will develop practical steps to apply the conversational leadership framework to a variety of challenging communication scenarios.
Annoying Communication Behaviors
Fight or Flight Behavior
Communication is one of the foundational skills demanded of any project manager, and the ability to handle difficult conversations effectively is frequently the difference between success and failure. Yet the act of communicating involves a complex set of interactions that has multiple potential points of breakdown. Challenging at the best of times, the potential for disconnect is greatly exacerbated when the stakes are high, opinions vary, or strong emotions are involved.
In any of these instances the brain's fight or flight instincts, rooted in the amygdala, leap to the forefront to prepare the body for physical action. Adrenaline is pumped into the bloodstream, increasing the ability of the legs and arms to either lash out or run away. Emotional senses are heightened, while blood is simultaneously diverted away from areas that the brain considers to be less critical at that moment (such as the prefrontal cortex, the seat of rational thought). We revert to the behavioral styles and habits we know best, moving further away from logic and deeper into a downward cycle of defensive and destructive behaviors. The pace at which this happens, our predilection for fight or flight options, and even the definition of what constitutes annoying or destructive behavior, varies considerably from one person and situation to the next.
Typical Annoying Communication Behaviors
Brinkman and Kirschner (2002, 2003) categorized difficult behavior into ten broad categories, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. These will be explored in greater detail later.
Exhibit 1: Common Annoying Behaviors
It is important to recognize that the perception of these behaviors will differ from one person to another, depending upon each person's mindset and experiences. It is important to be aware that others may perceive us as falling into one of these categories at certain times.
Responding to Annoying Behaviors
Evaluate the Options
When encountering annoying communicators, we face a choice on how to respond. And we always have a number of choices, for example:
• Do nothing—Accept that the behavior of others is beyond our control and we resolve to do nothing about it. This may involve suffering in silence, or complaining to others—in which case, neither action will improve matters.
• Walk away—In some instances, this may well be the best option. Certain individuals have a mindset so fixated that only psychological intervention could break through. At other times, the cost of trying to continue engaging with an unresponsive individual is too high to justify continuing. As with any other investment we have to use the cost-benefit analysis.
• Change our perspective—Because our conscious, working memory is extremely limited and energy intensive, the brain attempts to allocate incoming signals to existing patterns or mental models, which develop in the subconscious mind from birth. These mental models direct our instinctive behavior and habits, and give expression to our mental prejudices. At its simplest level, the mental models prevent us from seeing the world as it really is, and to generalize, distort, or even reject signals that challenge our existing beliefs. Sometimes a small change in perspective allows us to see something in a totally new light, and consequently react to other people in a different manner.
• Change our behavior—When we behave differently towards other people, we force them to learn new ways of working with us. As outlined in Oschadleus (2009), a considerable part of our behavior is driven by automated or learned responses, which flow out of how we have wired our brain. Instead of reacting to annoying behavior (and allowing reciprocal patterns of behavior to spiral us into a downward vortex), we have the choice to arrest that downward spiral of reactive behavior and force both parties to reflect on those patterns.
The latter two strategies are not easy, but they are the ones that lead to lasting improvements in the quality of our interactions with others. The challenge is in finding appropriate responses to different patterns of behavior rather than resorting to existing mental models.
Consider the Intent
Before deciding how to respond to specific difficult communication situations, we need to understand the underlying motives driving the undesired behaviors. Psychologist Elias H Porter (1973), founder of the Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI), determined that one of the fundamental premises governing human behavior is that we act in ways that will help us feel worthwhile about ourselves. In this he echoed the earlier work of Dr William Marston (1928), who suggested human behavior is governed by our perceptions on two dimensions:
• Do we perceive our environment to be positive or hostile?
• Do we perceive ourselves to have the ability to change our environment?
The responses to these questions identify the behavioral styles that make up the four quadrants of the subsequently developed DiSC® profile (dominant, influencing, steady or conscientious), which are attributed to either task-oriented or people-oriented behaviors. Brinkman and Kirschner (2002, 2003) extended this model to identify four basic intents and attitudes which, when combined with our personality and motivational value system, drive our behavioral decisions (Exhibit 2). This is graphically illustrated in Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 2: Understanding Intent
Exhibit 3: How Intent May be Perceived
In each instance, if the intent is not being achieved, our natural tendency is to intensify our efforts to achieve what it is we're seeking. The consequence is that we alienate people even more. However, when we can focus on people's positive intentions, we are able to make a more informed decision about how we wish to respond.
Review Ongoing Engagement Strategies
The Greek philosopher Aristotle stated that persuasive communication requires character (ethos), the ability to put people in a specific frame mind (pathos) and addressing logic from the perspective of the listener (pathos)—these elements make up the influence equity model outlined by Oschadleus (2007a, 2007b). The first two aspects relate to generic traits and skills which effective communicators continually develop. The third aspect is specific to the type of behavior we are addressing in any given interaction.
- Ethos (personal character)—We need to look inwards and examine our own attitudes and world views, to see how these might be contributing to the problem. Gaining the trust of other parties is also an important part of successful conversations.
- Pathos (putting people in a certain frame of mind)—Effective communicators understand the need to reduce the potential differences between people. The Latin term from which communication is derived refers to “common ground”—consciously and subconsciously we prefer to deal with people who are like us and avoid those who are different. Consequently, we need to reduce differences by creating rapport (i.e., aligning our verbal and nonverbal actions with the other party) to blend in with them. Once we have achieved some level of rapport, we can attempt to redirect others towards the desired behavior.
The most powerful manner of establishing rapport is by taking a genuine interest in others and listening to them empathically (i.e., with mind and heart) in order to understand their world view. We need to use our observational skills to see behind the words themselves. At the same time, we must assist others with their observational skills by demonstrating good listening behaviors. The conversational leadership approach, outlined in Oschadleus (2009), (including questioning techniques, monitoring your own communication and stating your intent) are powerful tools in ensuring that the conversation remains in the safe zone.
This requires communicators to be aware of physical, emotional, or behavioral cues that signal when the other person may feel that their safety is at risk, and then to diffuse that tension. Diffusing the tension requires understanding what is at risk, which brings us to Aristotle's third element of persuasion, logos. Logos is the ability to proof, using evidence that aligns with the world view of the listener.
Determine Specific Engagement Strategies
When we understand where our conversational partners are coming from—their intent, interests and concerns—we can bring out the best in them. The challenge of doing this is eloquently expressed in Brinkman & Kirschner's (2003, p.ii) analogy of communication:
Communication is like a phone number. If you leave one number out (only ten percent of the number), the call will not go through. If you dial the area code at the end as an after-thought, the call does not get through. You need all the digits to get through, and you need them in the right order.
Conclusion
This paper did not set out to solve the problem of how to deal with difficult or annoying communicators. Rather, it set out to provide context and to outline general underlying intents that govern behavior. It is from this foundation that the guided design component of the presentation will seek to apply the conversational leadership approach to specific types of annoying and difficult communication behaviors.