Dr. Earl R. Smith II

admin says:

83 Responses to “They just don’t get it? What do you do?”
1.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm e
Carol Webb – Some interesting answers here. Another possible approach could be, resources permitting, to assign the person some responsibility in the form of a small budget and one or two staff of their own. The thinking behind this would be to help them ‘grow up’ into the reality of working within organisational constraints. Chances are this person needs to just learn a little more. If they are given responsibility over someone like them maybe they will also see how difficult this behaviour can be and consider altering their own behaviour.
I do think though that managers who think and feel this kind of person is difficult to manage should also question their own abilities to lead. If a manager is finding leading such people difficult then maybe they themselves are unsuited to jobs where tasks are not routine (tasks including complexity, juggling people, thinking and problem solving for example).
Conflict, when managed well, can also lead to creative solutions and innovation. So the conflict between the difficult to manage person, who questions the process, and their manager, could be given legitimate space and validated as part of the process itself.
2.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm e
Tracey Harris, MBA, PMP – Some people will do this so they can be “seen” during the meeting. One way that I’ve found to limit such interruptions during meetings was to request that the person provide a solution for the problem or objection with data to support their statements. Anyone who could not backup their responses with relevant data was given an action item to provide an analysis of the pros and cons of “their” solution at the next meeting. People without valid objects would back down immediately and the others usually backed down after doing a little research on their proposed solution.
3.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm e
Indraneel Mukerjee – You dont mange these people. You manage your own perception of them. Look at them once again and why they behave the way they do. And you may find a hidden resource capable of being harnessed as an invaluable think tank. After all, there is neither night nor day. If only we could see things the sun’s way.
4.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm e
Alicia Miller – You can help that team member by keeping them focused on their core deliverables, and remind them they will judged against those goals first. If they are the kind of person who cares about their negative impact on others and their own brand within the organization, you can share how their behavior is impacting others, tarnishing their personal effectiveness, and how they can better direct their energies. If they don’t care, just keep them focused on their own goals and manage to that first.
I once had a team member who was so busy trying to tell other people what they were doing wrong in their jobs that she wasn’t performing her own job (and alienating everyone around her in the process of course.) She also punctuated meetings with “flatware” opinions (most of them negative), creating distractions. She was genuinely interested in improving the business, just misguided in her approach. A combination of refocusing her on her goals and sharing how her behavior negatively impacted others and her own reputation worked for her. I also had a sit-down with her and her core customer on another team to talk through how things could be improved. It turned out that part of her issue was that she didn’t feel like she was being included in core meetings (thus her knee-jerk reaction was to be critical in the hopes of being “heard”), so getting commitment from that other team member to start including her was key. In return, she promised to participate in a productive way – and then we set a check-back meeting in a month to see how things were going. The situation was much improved.
If your flatware talker is someone who disrupts a large meeting or presentation, usually the best thing to do is politely say “that’s an interesting point/question – it really isn’t within the scope of this discussion/presentation, but I’d be happy to follow up with you or discuss it offline.” That usually works.
5.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm e
Amanda Pepper – I think these people have read somewhere that they need to “add value” and their idea of doing so is to point out tiny flaws in things. . . They’re trying to look good; they think by doing these things, they’re drawing positive attention instead of negative. I think you need to give them ways to add value that will actually work for them and the group/company as a whole. Give them definite limits to work within, always be explicit about what you’re looking for and what kind of feedback you expect from them.
6.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm e
Graham Bird – When this has happened with staff I have to ask myself how much is me and how much is them – for example I prefer to give broad direction and let people work their own way – but some people want specific and detailed direction (I’m sure you can tell, I have an actual example in mind ).
I fell back to processes that are used widely and defined the task – in as much detail as the staff member required, let them commit dates and goals within the constraints of the overall task – and then used a regular review (based on the Hoshin process) to review the PROCESS (not, not, not the person) and invite comment about what is working and what is not.
In my experience, this gets to the root of the problem fairly quickly, enabling you as the manager, to point to improvements that are needed in the process. If the process is working, but goals and dates are being missed, then it is time for an individual performance improvement plan.
This is NOT as long winded and process oriented as it sounds – I used in with a small team of 12 and fgound it worked well.
It DOES force YOU to define the goals and to delegate well and to review regularly.
If you are doing all that and it still isn’t making a difference, then its time for a career discussion
7.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm e
Blake Ratcliff – As frustrating as such individuals are, they are sometimes are the most innovative and forward looking in an organization. I offer the following as the approach I have used successfully:
- Such individuals need a sympathetic ear to feel valued. This is not so much substantive as it moves them to a position where they are interested in your goals (I am assuming you are managing not having to cope with this class of employee).
- They must be given specific goals that are recognized by actual results.
- They must realize that you will ruthlessly pursue those goals and if part of the solution they are a valued contributor and if not they will be looking for new employment.
- They require regular feedback that both defines how you view progress toward stated goals and, at the same time, strokes their egos.
- They crave recognition. Give them all they want as long as they perform.
- Bluntly review their work with them and its short comings along with a generous dose of appreciation.
That said, the biggest issue with this approach is you can develop a reputation as “able to handle trouble makers” which comes with its own aggravation.
Positively, often “trouble makers” are driven making them excellent high pressure project support.
On your side, you must be singularly focused in managing them.
I hope this is on the issue you are pursuing and look forward to your reaction to these thoughts.
8.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pm e
Mel Walker – There have been several good responses to your question. I hope mine helps as well.
It has been said that one should never allow process to get in the way of purpose. If the process and purpose are well calibrated, then are the people calibrated to the objective?
I’ve never met a person in over 30 years of military and civilian careers who wakes up each morning thrilled because the’ve found a neat way to screw things up at work. They all want to do a good job.
The job they believe they are doing is not what is required (things may have changed), or they are not capable of doing what is required.
In any event, if the correct calibration can’t happen, a re-direction in career-path is necessary.
9.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm e
Mitch Krayton – You ask a vague question using pronouns like “them” and “they”. Get specific. You don’t reveal if this person is a customer, colleague, subordinate, family or friend. You would treat them all differently. At least I would. But I will speak generally about your issue.
First and foremost is that you must understand what you want to accomplish with any relationship and control your dialog. That is your responsibility and you are charged with getting your intended interests across. It is not up to them to figure out your problem.
Being vague in your question, gives me pause to think you may be vague in other communication. If the other person doesn’t understand you, doesn’t comprehend the significance, that is your fault not theirs. Make your intentions perfectly clear. Unambiguous.
There are two people in a dialog. One sends a message and the other receives it. Then the first one has an obligation to confirm that the message was understood as intended. If not, you will get confusion or assumption. You get apathy or rebellion.
You must have clarity-mutual buy-in. You must both be on the same page at the same time.
If you are trying to train or influence someone, you must first both find your common ground. That is a first level of agreement. People tend to trust and respect people they are most alike.
Then you must then identify what needs changing and then agree that you will both work towards that refinement. Without that buy-in, you have a contract without consideration (and lawyers will tell you that is a non-binding deal). I would focus here to resolve your issue.
I don’t know anyone who intends to live their life as a failure or a screwup. We all want to accomplish things. I do, however, know a lot of people who have disruptive or disconnected behaviors because they have never been asked to buy-in to an issue and they don’t receive a reward for compliance, nor a penalty for failure. More importantly, their voice has never been heard or accepted as a legitimate part of the bargain. If you can’t be heard, why should you care?
That is the fault of the initiator, not the receiver.
So the first thing I would ask you, is to look inward. Re-read your question and substitute “I” for “Them”. Ask yourself why you get this response from people. Does everyone have the same trouble with the same people? How to the people who get along with “them”, get their rapport? There is a model in there for you to consider.
Deploy another strategy to get mutual buy-in to the outcome and then be certain the rewards and consequences are known and accepted by both of you.
Focus on what is in it for them, and you will get what’s in it for you.
10.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm e
Linda Lane – Depends on the situation. What you describe could be the actions creative person in a non-creative environment.
Wanting to grab the spotlight is something actors are said to do, “Look at me!”
“Just not getting it’ is the halmark of a changing environment with much to learn, especially in terms of social environments.
Interacting with folks who don’t understand where we are coming from is a unique opportunity to communicate.
11.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm e
James Penman – This is not an uncommon situation.
First, if you are NOT an expert in the specific subject matter, then gather information from a variety of sources, so that you may then discern who is or is not an expert. Until you become the expert, you can not challenge this type of behavior. If you determine that the individual is not an expert, then the matter becomes an issue of time management for you. How long will you listen before you cut your losses is your decision.
If you are the expert, then the time to address this behavior is simply with questions.
Ask about the macro-level, industry level trends. What are the current industry hot topics? What do you foresee as future trends? How is the path from current to future trends connected? Ask that individual to comment on specifics – recent court rules, regulatory actions, product releases, evolution of recent technology advances, customer demand statistics, etc.
Then start to drill down into the raw, detailed, complex technical details. Ask about a complicated scenario. Ask about the formulas. Ask about how to solve a complex problem. Ask about specific historical events that contributed to the current situation.
Then I would ask about how they specifically and tangibly where involved in any of the aforementioned questions.
Then where there are any unclear answers to any questions, offer follow up questions. Asking for examples, offer rebuttals, and request further details.
As some point in time, the individual will either establish their expertise credibility by properly answering the questions. Or the individual will understand that they have engaged in a conversation with an expert and then likely to stop attempting to assert their incomplete point of view.
Incompetent people are often unaware of their deficit. By asking intelligent, well-formed, and probing questions, such people are provided an opportunity to learn of their deficit, and then likely to defer the spotlight to the expert.
Such a technique permits people to “save face”, while you establish your own expertise credibility, and provides you an opportunity to both learn and instruct.
12.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pm e
Sayeed Cassim – these guys are often pretending.
i have come across many such people and have patiently over hours explained various things to them. they have refuted every explanation of mine which required that i explain further.
i have seen them using all my explanations in a different setting as their own.
these guys need to be left alone. if they say something is bad agree with them and go on your way.
13.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:01 pm e
Tim Harris – “…seldom deliver substance to any process.”
Isn’t that the basic rule of any business ? If I were you, I would give the woman/man a raise for pointing out the obvious
14.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pm e
Keith Hamburger – Well, I’m going to take a different approach. (For those who have seen my answers before, that will come as no surprise. Perhaps this question is about me.)
If someone is proposing a change to a process, why not give them a chance to “put up or shut up”. Simply tell them that you would like to see a proposal on their ideas including costs and benefits. Let them know that as soon as they can produce such you will be happy to review that with them, one on one, to consider implementation of their ideas.
Most will just drop it from there, but, you just might find a truly valuable employee with good ideas.
If they don’t follow up through their own initiative, you’ve immediately turned off that topic of discussion for them. If they ever bring that topic up again you just have to ask them how they’re coming with their proposal. Once you toss a few such “opportunities” in the direction of this person, chances are they’ll either follow up or change their behavior.
(Note: I think we often find that when we talk about people that we can’t manage, it isn’t always the person, it’s just that we don’t know how to manage that person. We may find that they do well with one manager but not with another. If the person was promoted into their position from within you might be able to determine that by discussing this person with their previous supervisor. Maybe they were a star under that person and the issue isn’t the employee, but your management style.)
15.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:03 pm e
Marc Trepanier – I concur. In the military it is a discharge of Other Than Honorable and they are checked out as having an inability to adapt. Some thing in the business world, either they change and adapt or they are gone.
16.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm e
Jim Becker – The two most important elements are clear communications (of expectations and evaluation criteria) and good feedback.
The clearest communication is bidirectional and collaborative. Make sure you’ve shared your expectations, try to get some verification they’ve been understood, and be willing to have a constructive dialog with the individual about those expectations. For example, if you’ve set an expectation of “professional behavior,” you and the other person might have different views on what’s professional and what’s not, or on where professionalism is required and where it’s not.
When negative feedback is required, it needs to be: discreet (not public), specific to a particular incident (not a blanket complaint), timely (soon after the incident in question), factual (as concrete as you can make it, not a contest of opinions and interpretations), impact-based (the problems and risks resulting from the incident), and focused on next steps (ways the person can redress the situation or redeem themselves, or actions you’d take the next time it happens). If you consider the individual worth redeeming for any reason, try to give him or her a face-saving out, and make this an opportunity to improve things going forward, vs. a general condemnation.
If the person still doesn’t respond well, it’s time for corrective action according to your organization’s rules, whether it’s demoting, reassigning, or firing the individual, or documenting problems on the record with your HR people.
17.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm e
Jeffrey James – The way I react really depends on “how” the vision is presented. If the alternate “vision” does appear to be just someone interrupting the “process” I will usually either, look for another member of the group to gather their “view”. This may result in the “process” getting a much needed review. If it really is just a Lone Wolf opinion, I will usually take the matter off-line. Depending on how urgent the matter is this may mean leaving the overall “Issue” on the table until all of the flatware has been inspected and placed in the pattern that everyone agreed was the proper configuration for the “event”. Keeping an open mind on ANY process is the real key here. Those that are constantly tinkering with their processes are usually trying to get that process to require the least ammount of effort to maintain. This is how efficency is bred. If the change is more efficient and still makes sure the process is done correctly, then adoption of the varient may be in order!
18.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm e
Sanjeev Jha – Are you sure that you don’t get it? Old song… “people are strange when you are a stranger, faces look ugly when you are alone”!
If the person is a star, try a conversation and start by listening… if the person is anyway a non-performer ask him to walk.
19.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm e
Mykel de Willigen – Usually you won’t have time to go down this path, however if you do and you execute with rigor either this person will leave by his/her own choice or they will actually come around. (for the biggest part, personality itself won’t change )
Assuming you have both time and discretion here’s an alternative to “managing” this person.
As you’ve described, they seem to try to take centre stage with their behaviour. Yet, when observed carefully these kind of behaviours are (in my experience) primairely RE-active, needing some stimulus or katalyst before actually firing up.
Use this knowledge to your advantage; provide the specific stimulus or katalyst in abundance. This will most certainly (=likely) fire their Pavlovian behaviour, contradicting and or frustrating whatever’s on the agenda.
So far, nothing new but at this point we will take a different turn.
Instead of managing this person’s behaviour back into an acceptable bandwith, you’ll let their efforts to be central stage become increasingly succesfull while simultaneously providing as much katalyst as you can. (perhaps you should set the stage, informing / instructing the other participants)
Now you’re playing a role revearsal game.
Let him/her be central stage with the brightest of spotlights. When he/she tries to retreat make (fake) yourself to be even more dependent on the leadership and initiative which (s)he provides. You’ll become even more subserviant to his/her brilliant and essential inputs.
Either this person will actually say/come up with someting of value, which could be utilized.
OR
This person will choose not to come / bother you anymore, because you’ve shown the ablity to dissmantle his/her little powerplay and without it they don’t know what to do.
OR
They’ll realize their opinions are merely opinions. The responsibilities of “leadership” have been shown by experience to be much greater and more complex then his contribution of blurting things to a standstill. (s)he’ll make a sincere effort to actually contribute to the process.
20.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm e
Karl Garrison – Hmmm, sounds like middle management to me… (Just kidding, I think). (Actually, I have seen this in a number of managers who had long lost their technical edge, but couldn’t really accept it).
Often the best way to deal with this is with a heavy hand and very solid understanding and expertise in what you’re doing. If you can project and speak authoritatively, this often makes them not want to argue.
We also deal with this constantly with large clients undergoing transformation. We often say that legacy people are much harder to transform than legacy systems.
They are frequently brought on precisely because of their expertise in how they used to do things and often bring 20+ years of experience. (Well, it’s actually 1 year of experience repeated over 20 years – a very big distinction). They frequently argue with almost every change largely based on ‘that’s not the way I’ve done it for 20 years’.
Often they behave this way because they feel so threatened in their position and need reassurance they’ll actually still have a job after it’s all said and done. (Unfortunately, this often is not the case in transformations). When we’ve dealt with groups of folks like this, we’ve generally found a couple that can really understand what we’re doing and they can often get the others to move around because they speak the same language.
21.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm e
Vincent Nelson – I’ve been on both sides of this question and will offer this. Just because some practices have been the norm, sometimes that person’s methods and actions help reinvent the work place or solidify the strengths of the existing work environment. I have a very different approach than most of my colleagues and sometimes people are amazed that I work the way I do. As long as it doesn’t support mediocrity than I would say hey, its that person’s MO and that’s their own way of working.
22.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pm e
Gerald Lo – There seems to me to be more than one category of “they,” which appears to affect my approach and escalation strategy.
There’s the group which seems to go along with me just to shut me up in the most expeditious time possible. They get quiet pretty quickly, but I suspect it’s just a matter of time before they want something else.
Another bunch seems to be on some sort of built-in timer, which times out after a certain period has elapsed (or a threshold of questions has been exceeded).
While I have their attention, I endeavor to communicate using words, pictures, graphs, figures and anecdotes. Sometimes it takes a combination of these to convey the gist of my drift. I’ve found it constructive to prepare in advance the economic and temporal consequences of my message, as hitting management in the wallet appears to get their attention more often than not.
I am a chemical engineer by training, and Cantonese is my native tongue. Lord knows that most of us can use some help in the old communications department, so I first try to severely condition my expectations regarding my own ability to articulate thoughts in a comprehensible manner before ascribing any deficiency in comprehension to others. My language faults lie not in my stars, but in my self.
I am by no means a definitive authority on the acceptability of behavior, nor business norms. I do suffer from an MBA, and try to make it through three newspapers each day. My perspective is therefore somewhat conditioned by those of others, which might reasonably be expected to differ therefore from that of someone whose background and role is not mine.
I think that it is human nature which drives us to attempt to impose one’s own paradigms on any given situation, no matter how far removed from one’s experience or skill set that circumstance might be. I don’t think this is as much hubris so much as it reflects our limitations. We can only know what we think we know at the time, most of us are so busy and sleep-deprived that we can’t devote too much energy to worrying about that which we don’t know.
Tolerance and the capacity to entertain alternative viewpoints is an acquired behavior, and one which does not seem to always have much applicability in that part of the real world where we share a road with other drivers, on the field of sport, in the battlefield, or any of the thousand other places where humans must interact.
Empathy is, therefore, in my experience not a given which I should take for granted. Instead, I have found that I’ve often had to struggle for it and have sometimes lived to regret achieving it.
23.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pm e
Mario Dolbec – –It is hard to provide a quick answer without the full history, but here are a few things that were helpful to me.
–Agendas, have pre-meetings calls or, if possible, person to person with these folks. I do this to get an understanding of their position before the meeting and what to expect. If you can diffuse before the meeting, this may help.
–If appropriate, reach-out to their managers or the sponsor of the meeting to understand the role that these people are expected to play. This is an excuse to get some insight on the person(s) and create the right environment before the meeting.
–I try to do this, just to make sure we are all on the same page before the meetings start. Sometimes it helps, I must say the more you do it, the easier it gets. The last tool I use is a “Parking lot sheet”. This is where we put ideas that are not relevant to the agenda but for some reason it needed to be discussed. This is a way to acknowledge all comments and quickly take them off the current meeting. Don’t be afraid to let folks know how the meeting will go before it starts and the purpose of the parking lot.
–The most important learning for me ( well still working a bit on this ) was to not take it too personally.
24.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm e
Patrick Ciriello – I find that most people who act this way feel that they are essentially un-appreciated or un-seen. They believe the only way they can make an impression is to go against the grain. Unfortunately, most of them are passive-aggressive, so they don’t how to communicate on a level that doesn’t involve conflict. In my first management role, I had two such direct reports; they had their way of doing things, and weren’t about to change. What I found is that if you give them space, narrowly define their roles, and make a point to showcase their accomplishments, they become better team players. This is not to say they should be given gold stars for doing nothing, like we now teach our children. But everyone needs positive feedback, as well as negative, or growth does not occur. Sometimes, as a manager, you may have to take on specific roles for which these team members seem unable to handle. I had a brilliant network admin, but he was terrible with dealing directly with users. He used to answer the phone “yeah?” My solution: I got an answering machine (this was a long time ago…) and only I replied to the users after he explained to me what they needed to be told. After a while, he learned from how I handled the calls, and eventually he took over calling them back.
You need to understand and make allowances for people’s personalities. If you have taken any personality profile tests, you know that there at least 256 different types of personalities at a ‘high’ level. ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not enough.
People are individuals; you need to work with them individually. The concept of ‘one size fits all’ never works; not in clothing, and not in relationships.
And, just because a well-defined process exists does not necessarily mean its the right one. You might well ask them to go into detail, perhaps in a one-on-one, about their ideas. You may be surprised.
25.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:10 pm e
Sandeep Krishnamurthy – Look into the right messenger. Maybe, there is someone they look up to or respect who can have an impact.
26.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pm e
Victoria – Down the rabbit hole, eh?
Here we go, first: I’m not much for talk … let’s “capture” it on paper.
Second, it is time for “due diligence” — surely you are going to have a gap analysis? So, here is your chance.
Add columns that indicate:
Available
Required
Delta
Compliance “Fit”
Associated Risk (give specific measurements)
“Dollarize” the norm versus the modification
Show it to the person in question …
Show it to the person’s peers …
Show it to the person’s supervisor ..
If all else fails, (I used to do this ..) knowing the CEO’s habits, show up at his/her door at tea time. Invite the Exec into the kitchen and ask, “Did you want to spend $$$ more for something that should cost $ for no added value?”
That usually takes care ot it.
27.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:12 pm e
Pat Sharp – I have another perspective to offer. I have observed that sometimes really smart people are bored with things that work and become obsessed with “reinventing the wheel”…I think it’s because they don’t have something they can dig into mentally, so they create something. I saw it when I work for a software engineering firm. I also see it in myself sometime. And, it’s really dumb, because you want to focus your mind where it will really make a difference, and not waste time or energy unnecessarily.
So, you may want to step back and see if these are attention grabbing politicos OR maybe bored talented people who need something to sink their teeth into.
28.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pm e
Pete Berghold – From my experience there are two kinds of folks who “just don’t get it.”
Those who “don’t get it” because they see flaws in a system and can’t figure out why nobody else sees them.
And those who “don’t get it” because they are clueless because they have no real world experience either because they have spent their entire professional lives in an ivory tower or because they are newbies.
Each of these two personality types require different handling.
The latter person, clueless because of inexperience, can be very hard to deal with if they are ivory tower types. The simplest way of course to deal with them is to send them back to their ivory tower where they can’t do any harm, but that isn’t always an option. For the newbie mentoring is the way to go if you can find someone in your organization or if you have the patience to mentor them. The ivory tower guy needs mentoring as well, but from a different approach than a newbie. They need someone who understands the world of the ivory tower who can bring this person up to speed on the differences between the two environments.
The former personality type, the guy who is experienced and sees flaws, can be an exciting opportunity if it is handled correctly.
I know because I’ve been the guy who “didn’t get it” because of flaws in a process that made no sense to me.
A war story: I arrived at one of my jobs to watch as certain system administration tasks were done by hand by the system administrators already there. I asked questions about the process, and I asked the “electric acid kool-aid” question: Why is it being done that way? I was told “because that’s how it is.”
Wrong answer for my ears. I didn’t get it. I immediately started working on ways to automate those processes so the sysadmins did not spend all their time doing that grunt work and could instead do the things that sysadmin types should be doing.
So, the lesson learned there is sometimes the Emperor really is naked.
There **is** a third type out there and I’ve encountered them on occasion. They guy who doesn’t get it, can’t be told and wants center stage. Just like the unrepentant ivory tower guy these are the folks you find them a job in a corner where they can’t do any harm, give them lots of toys to keep them busy and leave them to their own devices. Hopefully they are actually useful to the organization in that corner. Otherwise there is another alternative…..
29.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pm e
Tim Deis – It is always worth one try to talk with the person, seek agreement on the key directions, and give them some private feedback. You can also be careful to structure the scope of a discussion (given X, Y and Z how do we accomplish our goal . . . and strictly enforce the givens.)
A related problem is often the the problem person will not take ownership of an action, or do so very weakly with a long list of caveats. This means that dates come and go, ankle-biter problems derail the project and no real progress is made.
The real solution is that after a couple of weeks you know in your gut whether this person is going to work out. Cut them loose and devote your time to managing someone who is willing to learn and step up, you’ll be better off in the long run. Whenever I have had to do this, the people remaining have made comments like “we were all wondering why it took you so long.” You’ll probably sleep better as well.
30.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:14 pm e
Jim Parnitzke – I rarely answer, and felt it was important to share your frustration and maybe add some value to this discussion. I too, see this more often than I care to admit. In most cases I can usually attribute this kind of behavior to a clear, demonstrated lack of experience and depth. The other smaller issue usually has something to do with the desire for attention. I have been doing management consulting in the IT and business space for almost thirty years and I can tell you it is what I learned after I knew it all that really matters. So, when you encounter the “flatware movers” in the future try to remain patient and understand you are experiencing learning and growth in action; in most cases; for those with an attention disorder, I’m afraid the only cure may be a career adjustment (maybe a move into the entertainment industry or politics)…
31.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm e
Jonah Hughes – My problem is 180 º from what you’ve asked. Business people take business too seriously. I’m bored by the linear lot, the connect-the-dots-crowd; give me a shiny distraction like, say, the Internet. Daydreaming solves problems. Towing the line creates problems. Corporations and their lemmings are not likely to agree, which leaves but one solution: medicate the masses.
32.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm e
Steve Giovannetti – Take a lesson from the structure of the Internet. Route around the damaged node. Give them something “special” to work on that won’t interfere with the task at hand but will keep them occupied and away from the rest of the project team. If they work for you then get them on a plan that addresses their behavior or gets them out of your organization ASAP. These type of people will kill an organization. If they don’t work for you but instead work for your customer then accommodate them up to the point in which it may cause issue with the project then escalate the issue to their manager. These kind of people can kill a project. If this person is your customer, heaven help you. Pleasing these kind of people can kill you. Sometimes it’s hard to remember the customer is always right.
33.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:18 pm e
Zach Perkins – I would believe that it depends on how well the person receives criticism. I had a colleague once who was very anal and perfectionist about almost everything. Once I explained to her that some things I do actually save time and cost and also told her (in a respectful manner) that I appreciated her input, but felt that my strengths and way of doing things were different than hers, she was able to see that she was wrong about trying to push her ways on me.
34.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:19 pm e
Brian MacLeod – I’m with Sheilah on this. You have to communicate clearly and early (get an HR person to sit in if you are a relatively inexperienced manager). Then you must be firm on all occasions, when they are off target.
Do listen to their picture of things in case you can reassign as some others have suggested.
Finally, follow warning procedures and fire as necessary.
35.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:20 pm e
Vadim Gorelik – Before I get into my answer, I’d like to take an issue with one sentence in your question – just because a process is well defined and generally accepted, it doesn’t mean that it is perfect or even good, and someone else might see a better way, in which case, they will try to imprint their own vision. But I think that goes without saying.
As for my answer, I find that these people behave in this way because they are out of place – either industry, promoted to their level of incompetence, do not belong in a team – any number of scenarios, but reason is still the same – they are out of place.
To make sure you are doing the right thing for your company, your team, you and this employee, I’d find out where exactly do they belong. Most of the time, the reasons are easy to see – just a matter of looking. After you know, you can act on it – get them transfered to another department, another position, demoted or even cut ties if you have to. The situation you are describing is poisonous and and doesn’t do anyone any good, including the employee that is behaving that way.
36.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm e
Steven Meitzen, CLU – How to manage this type of person:
Speak with them alone. explain this is strick one! 3 and you are out. Or shoot them-only good in some countries.
Why do they act that way?
They get some feeling of inportance that they need to have. Ask them to join some out side group were it does not cost you money when they wast time and gets the group off cource.
37.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm e
Sheilah Etheridge – I know them well. LOL As a rule once they have done this I will pull them to the side and privately talk to them. I will explain proper protocol and their role (if any) in the way things are accomplished. They get that one chance. After that if they continue, I will call them out in the group. This behavior is very disruptive and detrimental to the organization so allowing them to continue causes far more damage in the long run.
38.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:22 pm e
Tom La Velle – I have been on a few projects with people like that, paralyzed by the hypothetical, obsessed with the .02% exception. What I did was get buy in on 3 (or however many you wish) main bullet points (project mission statement) from them. Then when an objection, hypothetical or exception arises and threatens to derail the conversation or plan, you perseverate on the bullets to reign in the conversation, refocus the group and control the scope.
39.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:22 pm e
ALan Jay – I had that problem with someone recently. As an employee it just didn’t work he always wanted to change the way the company worked. Once we changed his role to that of a freelance with a very defined area he was happy to do what he was asked. Maybe we were lucky but before that as you say every time we had a meeting the discussion elements he brought up were the same and not relevant.
40.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pm e
Anthony Arana – I am reading a book about this topic. The authors give a standard procedure for dealing with difficult people (Bullies, tyrants and impossible people:Shapiro/Jankowski). I would try to control the discussion by asking how these opinions match the agenda of the meeting. Asking questions is the best way to identify a hidden agenda, in my opinion. I think these people behave this way because in previous ocassions they had been successful in introducing their 2 cents (worthy or not) and switching the direction of a conversation on their benefit.
41.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm e
Geert-Jan Dirven – I suggest you plan a final call… they either ‘convert’ or they have to leave, you can’t have it any other way. First, find out if your opinion is shared. Then find out what it is that these people are supposed to deliver, then find out if they do. If you think they can change for the better, ask other people how to measure it. Confront the people involved and agree a time and goal to change into. If they don’t,support people around them to move into their competences and take over (either piecemeal or big bang).
42.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm e
Frank Settineri – I do two things. First, I remind the group that we are here for one purpose -to do what is best for the company in an ethically acceptable manner. If there are any disentions that add to the discussion we consider them. Akin to the law, juries are composed of 12 individuals because the disenting voice may be correct.
Second, if the person cannot be pursuaded to accept the team’s collective suggestion I meet with him in private, hear what he has to say and tell him that we considered his suggestion but did not agree to it. Nothing personal but we all did what we felt was best for the project and company. However, I want him to continue to question decisions because he was hired for his expertise. I also expect him to drop the subject after we have given it our consideration. If not I would consider it an act unbecoming to a professional and would use it as an initial warning that could culminate in his dismissal if the behavior continues. Although firing is always the last option, it’s better to cut your losses as soon as you realize a person is a bona fide detriment and his actions are incorrigible.
This is a tough question with some great answers and only a couple of viable solutions.
43.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm e
Jeff Schaffzin – As yet another person who has seen both sides of this delicate situation, it took me a long time to come up with a response that would adequately answer this.
The reason for this is that you seem to leave out key details about these individuals who seem to be constantly questioning procedure.
Since there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach for this, the only thing I can say is that you need to look at yourself and see why this seems to be happening — most importantly what are you expecting from these individuals and what are they expecting from you?
With junior level employees you may need to take the time to mentor them and train them on your methodology. It may take time, but in the long run it will reap rewards. With more senior level employees, you may need to hear them out and see why they have such misgivings towards your system. Sometimes they may have good ideas, sometimes they might not. If you have tried their ideas before and they have failed, you owe it to them to explain why their ideas are not feasible. Most people who are level headed and have some intelligence will take what you say under consideration.
Another key part of this is that you need to see how you defined the roles for these individuals. Did you give a junior level person so much autonomy that they will fall on their faces when/if they fail? This happens often in Marketing organizations — they let the individual have free reign on what tasks they work on and if they succeed they are praised — if they fail they are punished or even terminated. This is not acceptable… The opposite is also bad — are you hiring a senior level employee and micromanaging her to death? In short, you need to be VERY specific to what you expect from these employees and treat them accordingly.
You also need to consider the length of their tenure at an organization. When you hire new individuals, this is often a time of great stress for everyone involved especially the new hire. While some individuals can easily fit into new organizations, others may need more support. If you fail to help these individuals early in the process, all you will do is set yourself and the employee for failure. If they have been there for a long period of time, they may be doing this simply because they feel that they ‘have to’ provide input. In either case, you need to make sure that these individuals are treated as such — individuals…
44.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:57 pm e
Anupam “Pom” Malhotra – I’ve had some luck applying the principles in the book “Dealing With People You Can’t Stand” by Dr. Rick Brinkman and Dr. Rick Kirschner. Their Lens of Understanding is quite useful in deciding how to manage people who constantly rub you the wrong way.
In order to deal with disruptive behavior, you first need to figure out whether the individuals are driven by a need for (a) Control, (b) Getting Attention, (c) Seeking Approval, or (d) Perfectionism. Each type further instantiates in various forms such as Tank, Grenade, Sniper, Whiner, Know-It-All, etc. depending on the level of Passive vs. Aggressive behavior and People vs. Task orientation. (NOTE: it is not the fact that someone is Passive or Aggressive or Task- or People-oriented that’s a problem, but that they exceed all acceptable norms of behavior in that category and become disruptive.)
Having figured out the specific persuasion for the behavior you observe, you can then apply some of the suggested styles for managing each type.
Bottom line, its easy to say that you should get rid of the person. However, its good to at least try to get a behavior modification…people should be worth that effort! Also, you may or may not have an organizational handle over these individuals, so its necessary to learn how to manage your own response to the behavior while at the same time figuring out how to prevent it from happening in the first place.
45.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:58 pm e
Lalita Amos – There may be several things going on.
They may be ineffective speakers who really do see something different, even though they are hopeless communicators. Consider stopping the action. telling them that you know they’re trying to add something of value and then tell them you’ll come back to them…and then do it. This may give them time to gather their thoughts more constructively. Just because there is a previously established process that has a lot of agreement around it doesn’t mean that it’s a perfect process.
If the person is relatively new, there may have been a poor “join-up” process and, frustrated that they can’t find their place in their new digs, they’re mouthing off inappropriately. Consider an in-department (or out of department) mentor who can show the person the ropes and help incorporate them into the team.
They may be a jackass. The sidebars others have suggested are a good ploy. They may need consistent coaching to help turn their behavior around…along with some real consequences for not doing so.
46.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:58 pm e
Kevin Lynn – Your question reminded of letter published by Elbert Hubbard at the turn of the 20th Century. In an open letter entitled “A Message to Garcia” he praised the exploits of a Lt. Rowan who with very little guidance carried a letter to the rebel Cuban General Garcia informing him of the impending US invasion. It was treacherous journey and it was completed successfully. Elbert being an industrialist ranted on about why couldn’t any of the people who worked for him respond to his requests with that kind of initiative. You may want to read when you get a chance. It’ll give you a chuckle or two.
You may also find reading Stephen Covey’s the 8th Habit helpful. If nothing else get the book just for the DVD. There are a lot of great insights that I have used to better focus my organizations and get everyone on board with the mission.
If all else fails, block access to online personal mail programs like earthlink, social networking sites like Myspace and time wasters like eBay. Those measures will take away some of the distractions
47.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 pm e
Ian Millar – this reminds me of a time when I had an employee who created a new solution to… never mind. (just kidding).
Assuming you are empowered to lead change, you must give the person strict performance goals, with the ability to be creative. This is a “Narrative Thinker” of which I am one; learning to manage them requires clear and concise goals – yet has allowance for significant creative input.
You will find that with those “NT” persons who do have the capacity to perform and deliver to reach goals can do so excellently, but they also need some leeway. They tend to process by doing AND discussing. They have to be “inspired”. The good side is that a performance oriented “NT” person will be able to create out of the box solutions well beyond the ordinary limitations when allowed. The down-side is that many of them are unable to be goal oriented.
Managing the process is the key. These folks see in a full spectrum of color (metaphorically speaking). If you are a bullet-point, black-and-white person, you will miss much of what they can offer. They can be an asset if you allow it. But, you must be able to manage them to goals.
Define broad and deep goals with specific time requirements; but allow room for their creative juices to flow. Even ask them to generate a new and creative way to achieve it. As a result, you will get solutions well beyond the average person. If you try to ride them in tightly confined parameters, such as with a Linear Thinker, you will be miserable and so will they.
I hope this helps. It may be that your Narrative Thinker employee will see things (solutions) that you miss and can be an asset to you, if you allow them.
48.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm e
Cynthia Wunsch – I just encountered this problem this past season with a baritone I hired to do a classical music project. He was from a different vocal tradition, and kept trying to sing in a barbershop style which was inappropriate. In addition, in 5 months he had not learnt the 20 pages of music which he had said was no problem, and to mask it he criticised some minor points of music I was sightreading and giving me advice on how to learn a new piece of music (I have a master’s degree in music and have been performing in operas for 20 years, and no-one has ever had a problem with my not learning music on time–I typically learn 150 pages of music per week). He wanted to focus on minor points of interpretation when he had not learnt the notes to his part.
Fortunately, this relationship has been severed. He failed to complete the registration process for a performance we were scheduled to do and since then every time he wants to get together I’ve had to wash my hair
He was also supposed to be the recording engineer for a CD and wanted to sing along with a recording, not record together the way that trained musicians do. He even threatened to pretend to go along with my requirements and then re-engineer it in the studio.
He also cancelled numerous scheduled rehearsals at the last minute and was consistently late for rehearsal when he did show up. In networking meetings whenever someone is doing their 30-second commercials or thank yous, he quite often makes insulting and injurious remarks to them or about them, interrupting them.
As you can imagine, he has been replaced.
49.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm e
Keri Kennedy-Morgan – Just the opposite – I was managed by someone like this and I could not work for him. It is an unmotivating and frustrating situation to be in.
It is an unhealthy environment to be around in general, much less working with these types of people. Negative and unproductive.
No matter if you are the manager or subordinate, you have to decide at which point you have to terminate the relationship.
50.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm e
Bill Pike – The question you pose and the people you describe struck me as a significant part of our current workforce. It reminds me of the Parado effect where a large number of people add little or no value to the business at hand. Yet the smaller percentage (20%) is unable to rid itself of the larger number (80%) of “just hanging on” workforce
People in organizations may not perceive themselves as an obstruction when they dominate meeting time exercising their vocal chords and egos. It often strikes me as fallout from misguided organizational policies that encourage the importance of hearing everyone’s opinion.
I can’t tell you how often I have to patiently wait while people in a meeting, who don’t understand the issues or risks, wax on about how they feel concerning a project or company objective. It is a perfect opportunity for center stage and these folks seem bent on making the most of it.
Unfortunately, it is not likely that self-important people, who abuse the time of the group, can be silenced. The energy that goes into their penchant for public speechifying offsets the need to tune in to the direction of a meeting and the importance of listening to the wisdom of others.
Today’s TV talent shows have a technique that works when someone who is failing to entertain needs to be cut short. The judges press a button that makes a loud buzzing noise, thus ending their presentation.
In a corporate setting, the meeting chair can look around the room to decide if the person has overstepped his/her time and can, in a more than quiet tone invoke the words “thank you.” (Followed by, “Let’s hear from some others…”) Doing so sends a clear signal that they have been extended an invitation to sit down or stop talking.
51.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm e
Charlie Garland – I must say that without first-hand knowledge of this scenario, it’s a bit difficult to give an appropriately informed answer. Yet, the majority of your respondents thus far seem to think they’ve got the solution firmly in hand. That being said, you seem to think you’ve got the *problem* firmly in hand…and I’m not sure that is the case. Whether or not you do can only be answered by you. I very much agree with Vadim G., who notes that not all processes are good, or *anything better than good*. Those who have a penchant for innovation will almost ALWAYS try to imagine things in a better state…and just because something has always been done a certain way, does not EVER mean that it has been done right, or optimally (do I really need to point out any examples for you?). If the status quo were always correct, we would, by definition, be in a state of stagnation. Evolution — and more importantly revolution — happen precisely because people challenge conventional wisdom. They stir up the mud. They create controversy. That, of course, does not mean that just because someone’s being a pain in the @$$, they are to be revered as the next great innovator…not at all! However, I would suggest that more times than not, someone who is raising an issue, a question, or “rocking the boat” as you and others may perceive it, could be doing you the biggest favor in the world — not by giving you the answer, but by causing you (all) to stop and ask your own questions (e.g. can this system, indeed, be improved in any number of ways?”; “even though I may not like this guy, perhaps his discomfort is borne of some level of reason, and not just to gain attention,” etc.). The key in a situation like this is striking a healthy balance between rigidity and flexibility; if you rely on either one without the other…I can guarantee failure.
It is a delicate subject handling such “outside-the-box thinkers,” but realize that there may be great value in doing just that, rather than merely writing the guy off because he’s upsetting you, or the status quo. Just food for thought. If you really want to fire, shoot, or publicly hang him (figuratively, of course), then you may very well find that an easier “solution” than the one which ultimately proves the more beneficial…
52.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:04 pm e
Nancy Delain – Why do they behave as they do? I can think of several responses to that.
(1) Insecurity. These people are INCREDIBLY insecure. No one ever taught them how to behave, and now they are floundering in water up over their heads.
(2) They’re fresh out of an MBA program, and don’t know any better; they are imbued with the academic vision of changing the world, and they forget that they’re not the only MBAs in the world. They don’t yet know that there are many people who have come before them with that same vision of riding up on a white stallion and putting all wrongs to right and that the current system is the result of the visions of many. I call this the Graduate School Syndrome, and I KNOW it’s out there.
(3) They are socially inept human beings who simply don’t know how to deal with others. These need to be given a book on business etiquette or have a consultant in business etiquette working with them.
How to deal with them:
If you are leading the meeting, do that: lead the meeting. It’s the meeting chair’s job to keep the meeting on track for the sake of all the attendees. Sometimes, you have to come out and say “We need to move on now; let’s table this for a later discussion” and then tell the disruptor that s/he must yield the floor to others. Anything else is a filibuster, and when that happens uncontrollably, it’s time to adjourn the meeting and reconvene later; this will be inconvenient for everyone there, I know, but sometimes leaving is the only way to shut them up.
If you are not leading the meeting, stand up and ask the chair if the meeting can PLEASE get back on track and move on now since you have an important engagement 15 minutes after the meeting is supposed to end and you need it to end on time (doesn’t matter whether that’s true or not). Everyone in the room will be grateful.
At some point, when you’re not in front of any other person, take IDon’tGetIt out to lunch (yes, YOU pay for it, because your words will sting them badly) and have a heart-to-heart: tell them that they have some work to do on their business and people skills. Point out that the meeting chairs have been interrupting them to get the meeting moving along on the proper track. Point out that other people have to be allowed to speak at meetings. Offer to stomp on their foot the next time they’re behaving obnoxously in a meeting (sometimes they don’t realize what they’re doing; it’s just nerves). This will introduce this person to the concept that they MUST shut up and listen sometimes.
Good luck; it’s not fun dealing with these. I’ve done it and thank goodness I don’t usually have to do it now.
53.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:04 pm e
Alex Isidoro – Before you do anything verify that others see it your way.
You may have a bigger problem than you think: many may agree with the abominable minutia man.
54.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am e
James Hale – History has been full of these people. I believe that there was a certain Tea Party in Boston that was caused by these people. It’s part of change and if it’s one thing I’ve learned over my years is that change is the only constant you can count on. Tie dyed clothing, pierced nipples, alternative behavior: These are all things that this type of person contributes to. It’s the minutiae that they can get away with changing. Little changes, one by one, can cause big changes eventually. Remember the age old question, “How do you eat an elephant?”. How do you deal with them? Embrace the changes and look at them for what they are. They are all part of the changes that will occur anyway in life.
55.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am e
Ray Miller – In my experience the people I have encountered with these behaviors are just trying to distract everyone from the fact that they are not competent.
When I have encountered it I have established hard and fast measures of their productivity. Either they meet them or we address it right then and there.
56.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am e
Venugopal C – Let me adress your second question first. Why do they behave the way they do ? More often than not such people are crying for attention. The need to be”included” is very high. In seeking inclusion they try to be part of every conversation -most often with as you say with minutiae contradictions. They are the “stormy peterels” of the world hoping to get noticed by rocking the boat…but unfortunately for them they don’t have the muscle to really rock the boat..but just manage to cause an irritating distraction.
Now for your second question..how to manage these people? By helping them grow into full people who feel complete without the need for inclusion all the time. You would relly be doing them an immense favour if you can achieve the same. My experience is that many times such people are really bright and can be valuable. They just need to “know” their worth deep within.
Most often holding a mirror to them is all that is needed. Tell them that you care and that is why you are risking the relationship by being blunt. Then tell them that next time they feel the urge to speak..to just hold back. However good they think their idea is let them practice silence. Tell them that you would help them by giving them signals in meetings if you observe their getting out of control. If they continue to practice silence, and resist the urge to give their views all the time..soon they will realise that it is not always necessary to have a view and express it on every occasion. They will start experiencing the power of silence.
They will always value you for having shown them their true worth.
57.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:32 am e
Surendra Bhatia –
1.”street smart” behaviour….if they are not adding any “value”, their “integrity” need to be checked….if they fail in that too, then they need “transformation” of character outside the preview of the organisation.
2. if “1″ is not an issue, then it falls under the preview of “OD” tools…”employee Insight”….”management of change”….or may be a question of “infusing discipline” on the “assumptions” that the policy, procedures, norms & systems are “perfect fit” for the organisation.
3. finally, challenge the “assumptions” …there may be a need to “redefine” process through “introspection”…
after all, the bottomline is to continuously optimise on collective value creation / addition.
58.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am e
Howard Halpern – It’s an authority problem. When there is a well-defined authority who understands the situation, the authority nips it in the bud before it becomes serious. Authority is not in vogue; hence, today you have all kinds of ridiculous things going on that were not tolerated in the 50s. Change is not always good. Individual rights are a great impediment to the common good. Freedom to aggrandize oneself at the expense of others is not true freedom, and those who benefit least are the ones who assert themselves without regard for the welfare of the organization as a whole.
59.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:34 am e
Hans Dekker – Don’t do business with them and if its personal make a decision to keep up with it or walk away. You can never control anyones experience. I wish I could….world would be a ……. place
60.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:34 am e
Hans Dekker – In my opinion this well know behavior is FEAR in capital letters. If you divert, contradict, try to imprint “your” vision means that you don’t have to take repsonsability. When things go wrong you allways have a way out; You said so. And if things turn out well and you objected…who remembers and even if they do the person can say it would even been better if…… So in my humble op