Human Antipatterns and Negative Personality Types
Colin J. Neill, Philip A. Laplante, and Joanna F. DeFranco
Everyone has to deal with difficult people. In Brown et al.’s AntiPatterns, people who cause trouble are called "corncobs."The term "corncob,"meaning a general pain in the buttocks, apparently derives from the fact that before the regular use of toilet paper (rolled toilet paper was not introduced until 1890), anything at hand, including the unused parts of shucked corn, were used in the lavatory for personal hygiene.
In our experience, corncobs probably represent less than 5 percent of the population, but they provide 90 percent of the interpersonal problems in a work environment. Their presence leads to stress for everyone, reduced morale and productivity, and ultimately, a toxic work environment.
Corncobs exist because they have developed certain behaviors, possibly since childhood. Corncobs stick with these behaviors when they elicit the desired response: conciliation, perceived respect, perceived power, material rewards, etc. Because these behaviors are well established, as a manager or team member, you are not likely to "unlearn"them. Instead, you will have to cope with these behaviors.
Here are some general coping strategies. First, do not form an opinion about a person or situation too soon. Often, the suspected corncob is suffering from some other problem. Almost without exception, taking the time to investigate an issue and to think about it calmly is superior to reacting spontaneously or emotionally.
Second, make sure that you listen to all sides of the story when arbitrating any dispute, but particularly those involving difficult people. It is often said that there are three sides to an issue: the sides of the two opponents and the truth, which is somewhere in between. This has been our experience.
Make sure you focus on issues and not people. You can work on this by avoiding the use of accusatory phrases such as telling someone that he is incompetent. Focus, instead, on your feelings about the situation.
Always work to set or clarify expectations. Management failures, parental failures, marital failures, and the like are generally caused by a lack of clear expectations. Set expectations early in the process, and make sure that everyone understands them. Continue to monitor the expectations and refine them if necessary.
Finally, be an optimist about a given situation and the behavior of others. No one chooses to be a failure. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt and work with them. After all, you would want this for yourself.
Confronting Difficult People
Despite your best efforts to avoid dealing with difficult people, sometimes they must be confronted. It is sometimes easier to deal with these difficult people if you can characterize them according to their negative behaviors; that is, to find the human phenotype they fit. One taxonomy for categorizing corncobs, or difficult people, is derived from the work of Robert Bramson, comprising his doctoral dissertation and published in the book, Coping with Difficult People [Bramson]. While there are other scholarly taxonomies of difficult people, we like this one. It is a 20-year-old book but people have not changed much since then, and it offers some very practical strategies, which we have used ourselves in dealing with corncobs.
Bramson suggests that difficult people conform to one of seven antipatterns or "phenotypes"(our term, not Bramson’s):
- Hostile Aggressives
- Indecisives
- Whiners
- Negativists
- Clams
- Bulldozers
- Superagreeables
It is a surprising phenomenon, at least in our experience, that most people do not actually know if they fit one of these negative personality phenotypes. Most whiners, for example, would not admit that they are whiners. Usually, it takes someone else to point out the truth to them.
Therefore, it is possible that you, the reader, might fit one of these. We hope not. But one way to find out if you do is to use reflection. As you read the scenarios, be honest with yourself. These are behavioral styles and fitting one of these does not make you an evil person or even a bad person. Everyone is flawed. Work to address your flaws.
Hostile Aggressives
According to Bramson, the Hostile Aggressive phenotype appears in three sub-varieties:
- Sherman Tanks
- Snipers
- Exploders
Each of these types is distinct and easily identifiable. The strategies for dealing with them (their refactoring, that is) are straightforward and usually work but often require a great deal of courage.
Sherman Tanks
Bramson’s Sherman Tanks are typical bullies; they will pound you into submission because they are openly hostile and aggressive. They know that intimidation works in many situations, largely because many people seek to avoid conflict. For example, we know that more than half of the Myers-Briggs types will seek to avoid confrontations.
The solution to dealing with Sherman Tanks, according to Bramson and our own experience, is to stand up to them—but not in the sense of a nose-to-nose shouting match, which could escalate to a physical confrontation. Instead, state matter-of-factly, calmly, but firmly: "I disagree with you."You can elaborate on your reasons why, but that is not really important. They will try to interrupt you, as they invariably do; do not allow it.
What you are demonstrating to the Sherman Tank is that you are not spineless. Remember that Sherman Tanks like to fight. They live for it. But they also like to intimidate. And by showing them that you are not intimidated, they are very likely to back down. In fact, Bramson notes that if you stand up to a Sherman Tank, that it is even possible that you will earn their respect and that in the future, they might even act like they are your friend.
Snipers
Snipers, as their sobriquet implies, like to hang out in the background and embarrass you through barbs at inopportune moments. They are hecklers, and they derive their enjoyment from embarrassing you, one-upping you if you confront them, and by demonstrating how clever they are. They tend not to confront you one-on-one; but rather, they ambush you in a very public setting when you are unprepared and relatively defenseless.
Here is how Bramson suggests you deal with a Sniper. When he makes a sarcastic comment or humorous barb at your expense, stop whatever you are doing, pause, look him in the eye, and call him out; that is, ask him if he intentionally meant to insult you. This should have the effect, again, of embarrassing the Sniper and causing him to go into hiding, at least for a while.
Exploders
Exploders are typically calm and unassuming. But in certain situations, particularly under stress, they shift completely "out of character"and unleash explosive negative behavior—shouting, cursing, insulting, waving of hands, storming about, etc. When you try to address their concern, they will interrupt you, shout you down, and not allow you to get a word in edgewise.
Exploders are difficult to deal with because they do not want to listen. The way to handle exploders is as follows. First, do not let them interrupt you. Politely use the same strategy for interruption you used with the Sherman Tank. Second, try to help them understand what is making them unhappy. Let them know that you want to help them, and calmly try to do that. Usually, the Exploder is unhappy with the situation (not you). If the situation is something you can control, then you need to deal with the situation. If the situation is not something you can control, then you have to try to find someone who can help the Exploder.
Exploders are particularly difficult to deal with because this is a behavior that is learned at the earliest age—crying and screaming lead to a bottle or diaper change; and it is an effective strategy. In most cases, the persistent Exploder will get what he wants, one way or another. This coping strategy might seem wholly unsatisfying for the "Explodee,"but in all these scenarios it must be remembered that the intent is to reduce stress and find a mutually acceptable solution—not to rehabilitate or "teach them a lesson,"regardless of how tempting.
Indecisives
The Indecisive personality cannot make a decision about something that is important. Of course, this is a terrible attribute in any manager.
It is not that an Indecisive is a bad person, it is just that she cannot or will not make a decision because something directly or indirectly related to that decision is probably bothering her. You need to find out what is bothering her about the decision, and help her find a win-win solution to the situation. The idea is to get the Indecisive into a problem-solving mode and help her seek a solution to her dilemma.
Whiners
The Whiners, also known as Complainers, are another phenotype found in just about every organization. They like to complain about everything but offer no solutions because they feel powerless. More profoundly, they like to drag everyone down with them and can set a negative tone for an organization that is difficult to overcome.
Here is how to deal with Whiners. Do not apologize to them. Actively listen to them and acknowledge their complaints without agreeing with them. Try to engage them in problem solving by asking them to put their complaints in writing with specific details.
Negativists
These are your "wet blankets."They complain, usually, because they perceive that they have no power. You probably know someone like this. The way to deal with Negativists is to stay positive and realistic with them. Do not let them drag you down.
Sometimes, a joke can be a powerful mechanism for making an individual realize their own flaws. One way to refactor the situation is to show Negativists them how they are perceived by others and to remind them that people forget the good that they do when they complain too much.
Clams
Bramson’s Clam phenotype describes people who tend to offer little or no reaction in most situations, even to direct questions. Usually, the clam will offer only a blank stare or some meaningless, monosyllabic conversation. They are very difficult to deal with because they offer no feedback with which to gauge the effect of what you say to them and, thus, adjust your approach.
It is difficult type to deal with. The refactoring involves trying to elicit a response from them by asking a specific question such as, "What is your response to my statement?"or "What do you think about the situation?"Then go into a silent, friendly stare of your own, allowing the dead time to force the Clam to respond. If they still do not respond, provide a response, such as, "Well, I’m unhappy with the situation"or "I think what you are doing is terrible."Then state the action you are going to take in response; for example, "So, if you don’t come to work on time every day for the next two weeks, then you will be asked to clean out your desk and depart."The actions should be decisive and based on something than can be measured or observed.
Dealing with a Clam is similar if he is your boss or a peer. The main difference is that you cannot give your boss an ultimatum, although you might have some leverage over a peer. With your boss, you can document the encounter in an e-mail summarizing your understanding of the situation. In some cases, you may have to inform your boss that because you cannot get an answer from him, you will need to go to a higher authority. In any case, memorialize any encounter with a Clam in writing.
Bulldozers
Bulldozers are expert know-it-alls who batter their opponents with a presumably superior knowledge of the facts, usually leading to some dire failure scenario. In fact, Bulldozers are a kind of rational negativist who sees the facts only as supporting their worst fears.
To refactor the Bulldozer, take her analysis to the extreme and show her that her fears are unfounded. Do not try to "out-fact-check"a Bulldozer, because you probably cannot do it. They are well read and are masters at manipulating facts to their advantage. In essence, have them extend their negative scenario so that they provide a solution that mitigates the risks. Often, they will discover that their fears are ridiculous or they will find an acceptable solution to the problem.
Superagreeables
This phenotype dismisses people with patronizing agreeability, but at the end of the day, Superagreeables are just as unhelpful as an Indecisive. Like the Indecisive, you have to hold Superagreeables accountable. Give them deadlines. Get them to tell you what is really on their mind and preventing them from making the decision. Then try to offer them a win-win solution.
Combination Personalities
It is probably the case that some people, perhaps the more sophisticated "corncobs,"exhibit the behavior of more than one of these personalities. When this is the case, some combination of the previously mentioned defensive strategies should be improvised.
Conclusion
So what is the point of all these bizarre classifications, assessments, and theories regarding human personality, potential, preference, and motive? Why bother to study patterns of human behavior? And why are we bothering with it after proclaiming this book to be non-scholarly and entertaining? First, they can be used to understand what motivates people. Having understood their motivations, it becomes easier to seek win-win solutions or avoid causing problems. Understanding the motivations of each individual also helps a manager in organizing teams. Some companies even use personality tests in their hiring practices to ensure corporate cultural alignment – although that strikes us a short-sighted since there are clearly so many dimensions to consider and few validated studies to inform our choices.♦
References
[Bramson] Robert Bramson. Coping with Difficult People. Dell Paperbacks. 1988.
[Brown] William J. Brown, Raphael C. Malveau, Hays W. McCormick, and Thomas J. Mowbray. AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis. John Wiley and Sons. 1998.
Read more IT Performance Improvement
Certain names and logos on this page and others may constitute trademarks, servicemarks, or tradenames of
Taylor & Francis LLC. Copyright © 2008—2012 Taylor & Francis LLC. All rights reserved.
|
