Handling Difficult Behavior Constructively
Handling Difficult Behavior Constructively
Golden rule
Address the behavior, not the person.
Four techniques
- Direct intervention: name the behavior and its effect on others.
- Indirect intervention: praise good behavior when it appears.
- Direct coping: talk to the person one-on-one, away from the group.
- Indirect coping: train others to respond to the behavior.
What makes it work
Communication skills, a shared view of the conflict, the spread of power, and personal accountability.
Positive conflict
Resolved win/win, it strengthens a relationship. Win/lose damages it.
Who owns the problem
The person hurt by it, even if they did not cause it.
In any attempt to settle a dispute, some behavior gets in the way: a person talks over others, refuses to budge, or tries to win at any cost. The move that keeps a resolution on track is to deal with the behavior and leave the person’s character out of it.
Address the Behavior, Not the Person
Calling someone “a difficult person” fixes a label on them, and the difficulty is rarely the same from one person to the next anyway. Naming a difficult behavior instead, such as talking over others, points at something specific that can change. That shift is the foundation for everything else.
Once the behavior is the target rather than the person, the response can stay calm and specific.
During a meeting, one person keeps interrupting and blocking every idea raised.
What is the most constructive first step?
There are four techniques for doing this, split between addressing the behavior head-on and managing around it.
Four Ways to Handle Disruptive Behavior
| Technique | What it does |
|---|---|
| Direct intervention | Names the behavior and explains its effect on others. |
| Indirect intervention | Praises helpful behavior so it is more likely to return. |
| Direct coping | Talks to the person one-on-one, away from the group. |
| Indirect coping | Trains others in the group to respond to the behavior. |
The two interventions work on the behavior directly. Direct intervention names it and explains the harm it is doing, so the person sees why it is causing trouble. Indirect intervention does the reverse: when someone uses helpful behavior, it gets acknowledged, because praise makes that behavior more likely to come back. The two coping moves manage around the behavior instead. Direct coping takes the person aside for a one-on-one talk when a public exchange would only inflame things. Indirect coping trains the rest of the group, since responding well to disruption is itself a skill that can be learned.
Intervention works on the behavior directly; coping manages around it.
Intervention names the behavior and its effect, or praises better behavior. Coping takes the person aside one-on-one, or trains others to respond. Both aim to keep the resolution moving without attacking the person.
What Makes These Techniques Work
How well any of this works depends on four conditions. The parties need real communication skills, so the exchange runs both ways instead of one person doing all the talking. They need a roughly shared view of the conflict, since it is easier to settle when both sides see the same problem. The spread of power matters too: when a few powerful people dominate, lower-ranked members often go quiet and stop contributing. And each person needs personal accountability, backing up what they say with reasons so it can be taken seriously.
In a resolution meeting, junior staff stop speaking once several senior managers dominate the discussion.
Which condition is at work here?
Get these conditions right and the same technique lands far better. Ignore them and even a well-run intervention stalls.
When Conflict Is Positive
Conflict is positive when it is settled win/win, with both sides walking away feeling they gained something. Most relationships run into conflict at some point. Settling it win/win tends to strengthen the bond, because both sides see themselves as winners. A win/lose result, where one side loses badly, tends to damage the relationship instead.
When it is resolved win/win, so both sides come away feeling they gained.
Most relationships have conflict at some point. A win/win outcome strengthens it, while a win/lose result, where one side loses badly, tends to weaken or break the relationship.
Who Owns the Problem
The owner of a problem is the person negatively affected by it. Their responsibility is to work toward a solution, even when they did not cause the problem in the first place. Waiting for the person who caused it to fix it usually leaves the affected person stuck and the dispute unresolved.
A colleague’s constant lateness disrupts a shared project, and the deadline is yours to meet.
Who owns the problem?
Owning the problem is not the same as taking the blame. It means being the person the problem affects most, and so the one with a real reason to get it solved.
Preparing for a Win-Win Talk
A resolution talk goes better with a little setup:
- Bring only the people actually involved. Extra outsiders slow things down.
- Describe the problem in a way that respects everyone, covering both sides’ views rather than one.
- Explain how a resolution can let everyone gain, and lay out the steps you have in mind.
- Agree in advance not to slip back into win/lose.
- Pick a good time and place with no distractions, not late when people are tired or rushed.
- Keep a way to write ideas down, since good ideas surface fast and are easy to forget.
Bring only the people involved, describe the problem fairly to both sides, and explain how everyone can gain.
Agree to avoid win/lose, choose a calm time and place free of distractions, and keep a way to note ideas down before they slip away.
With the behavior kept separate from the person and the ground prepared this way, most disputes have a path to an outcome both sides can live with.
How was this article?