Copyright © Robert T J Marshall.
All rights reserved.
Dealing with difficult people
By Robert Marshall
We’ve all met them: the “awkward
squad”. They dig in, talk tough, make
statements about what they will and
won’t accept, and then argue that their
needs and ideas should prevail.
Almost everyone has the capacity to behave
like this and we’ve probably all done it at some
point. Colleagues, suppliers, customers,
friends, partners and children can all be
stubborn and unyielding at times. So what is it
that sometimes drives people to behave like
this and – more importantly – what can we do
about it?
What do we mean, “difficult”?
Avoiding evaluation
Sometimes people make demands and try to
impose their ideas on others because they
believe they have identified the best solution
(for them). They think that by avoiding a proper
debate and evaluation of other possible
solutions, their idea will prevail.
Positional bargaining
Difficult people often negotiate using old-
fashioned ‘positional bargaining’ – a technique
based on saying what they will accept, then
arguing the other person down, until they
either give in or walk away.
Resisting change
People can be difficult if they perceive that a
change is imminent that will not be in their best
interests.
Change resistance
There are only three sets of reasons why
people resist change.
1. They don’t understand the change that’s
being proposed. To overcome this type of
resistance, you’ll need to explain carefully
and clearly, then check for agreement.
2. They understand, but don’t agree. You’ll
need to explore their interests and
concerns, explain the reasons and
benefits to them. Maybe they have an
even better idea!
3. They don’t trust you. There’s no point in
trying to influence people who don’t trust
you. You’ll need to build trust and
empathy first, then try again to influence
the outcome.
Get the fundamentals right:
negotiation, communications, behaviour
1. Change how you negotiate
The biggest single cause of negotiation failure
is people arguing about what they will and
won’t accept. Indeed, this approach (it’s called
‘positional bargaining’) has become so firmly
established as the ‘norm’ in most Western
societies that many of us do it without even
thinking.
But there’s a considerable weight of research
and experience to show that digging in,
refusing to change your position and arguing
the other person down causes real problems: it
takes too long, has a low success rate, and
damages relationships and reputations.
Launched in the 1970s, the Harvard Law
School’s Negotiation Project has drawn some
simple and startling conclusions that have
formed the basis of an entirely new approach
to negotiation, now increasingly used by
professional negotiators, mediators and those
who work in conflict resolution. The founders of
the Harvard project – William Ury and Roger
Fisher – called their new model ‘Principled
Negotiation’.
Have an alternative
Principled Negotiation theory says that if you
don’t have a ‘plan B’ (Ury and Fisher called it
their ‘BATNA’, or Best Alternative To
Negotiated Agreement), you’re unlikely to be in
a strong position in the negotiation. So think in
advance about what you’ll do if you really can’t
reach agreement with the other party: will you
try to find another supplier elsewhere? Ask
your boss to talk to their boss? Delay the
project for now? Whatever it is, it needs to be
something that you really would do – the ‘next
best thing’ to the negotiated agreement you’d
been hoping for.
In any negotiation, the person with the
strongest BATNA is very likely to have the
upper hand, but you don’t have to tell the other
party what your BATNA is and, indeed, doing
so can sometimes jeopardise the negotiation if
it makes them feel that you’re threatening
them.
 Copyright © Robert T J Marshall.
Principled Negotiation All rights reserved.

1. Separate people from problems

Criticising people, blaming them for what’s happened in the past and making assumptions about how they’ll
behave in the future are all unhelpful starting points for a negotiation. What’s actually needed is a radically
different mindset, in which you engage with the other party as fellow problem solvers, rather than viewing
them as the enemy. Personally, I achieve this by imagining a piece of grass with a fence down the middle: on
one side of the fence I put all the people (from our ‘side’ and theirs), and on the other side I put all the
problems and issues that we’ll need to discuss and resolve (again, mine and theirs).
2. Focus on interests, not on positions
Avoid positional statements, ask lots of questions instead, and listen carefully to the answers. Ask what’s
important to them – what it is they’re hoping to achieve through the negotiation, and tell them what matters to
you too. Be open and honest, share your concerns and ideas, and insist that they do the same.
Dealing with a positional statement (e.g. “that’s our final offer” or “we’re not prepared to discuss it”) is best
done by asking a question. Among the most powerful questions you can ask are “why?”, “what makes that
fair?” and “so tell me how that might work?”. Ask your question, and wait for them to answer it. If there’s a long
silence after you’ve asked your question, that’s just fine.
3. Create lots of possibilities before deciding what to do
Too often people go into a negotiation convinced that they already know the best solution or outcome – so the
purpose of the negotiation then becomes one of persuading the other person to agree to your plan.
That approach assumes that there’s no better solution than yours, but it’s actually entirely possible that some
smarter idea might emerge during the negotiation. So the negotiation needs to be focused on creating lots of
ideas and possibilities, then exploring these together and agreeing on which is best: not just best for you, or
best for them, but the best and most balanced solution to your jointly-owned set of requirements, issues or
problems.
4. Insist on an outcome based on some kind of objective criteria
If you agree to something then later on find out it’s not fair (for example, that you’ve paid far too much), it can
ruin the future relationship between the parties.
You need to insist on having some way of judging the fairness of what’s being proposed, so ask some more
questions: “what do other organisations like ours do in this situation?”, “what did we do last time, and did it –
with hindsight – seem fair?”, “where can we find out what other people pay for similar services?”.

2. Understand how we communicate But the words matter most…don’t they?

It’s almost too easy nowadays to send off an
email when you want someone to do
something (or just to tell them how you feel)
and it’s equally easy to ignore or
misunderstand their disembodied response.
We’ve all had emails that include a ‘winking
eye’ or other emoticons: annoyingly blunt
instruments, and no substitute for the subtlety
of a live emotional signal. Similarly, a text
message is nothing more than a hasty, one-
way communication - or at best a series of
them.
Trouble is, communication between people
isn’t really as simple as that. In conversation,
we are, in fact, simultaneously doing three
quite distinct things:
(1) Listening to and understanding the words
that are being said
(2) Gauging the tone in which they are being
said – timidly, angrily, excitedly, with
concern, or whatever
(3) Gathering up lots of non-verbal information
too, from the way people are sitting or
standing, their facial expressions, and the
movements of their hands and eyes.
If you believe that, try this simple experiment.
Sit down with a DVD of a film you’ve not seen
before, but watch it with the sound turned off.
You’ll probably be pleasantly surprised at how
easily you can follow the storyline, the ebb and
flow of the human relationships, who the
goodies and baddies are, and where the
romantic interest lies. Try that with sound but
no pictures and you’ll soon be struggling to
keep up with the subtleties of the plot.
The ‘Rule of Four’
Some of the ‘cues’ we get from other people are
subtle and can sometimes be misinterpreted, so
don’t base your assessment of someone on a
single cue. You need FOUR, self-consistent
pieces of information to make a secure
judgement, e.g.
• Words
• Voice tone
• Eye movements
• Hand gestures
• ‘Gut’ feeling
• Body language
• Previous history
If you need more proof, consider this: the
words “thank you” in an email are always a
benign and friendly gesture of appreciation.
But now imagine the same words being

spoken to you with a voice full of anger and
sarcasm, or alternatively with the curt and
disapproving tone that a stern head-teacher
might use to silence a child who’s been talking
during Assembly. It quickly becomes clear that
words on their own – stripped of the rich
context provided by voice tone and body
language – can be open to dangerous
misinterpretation.
Words, tone, body
From an early age we spend a great deal of time
focused on words, and we understand the value of
teaching our children to read, write and develop
their vocabulary. Words are undoubtedly great for
conveying simple, factual information.
(1)
But according to behavioural psychologists , the
words we use count for as little as 7% of all the
communication that is going on in a face-to-face
conversation, with the rest being attributable to the
‘non-verbal cues’ that we pick up from voice tone
(38%) and body language (55%).
(1)
Prof. Albert Mehrabian’s highly influential research at the University
of California in the 1960s proposed the weighting of 7%, 38%, 55%
(words, tone, body). The most recent research suggests that body
language may be even more important, with weightings of about 7%,
28%, 65%.
3. Learn to adapt your behaviour
It’s important to understand the difference
between assertive and aggressive behaviours,
because the latter creates conflict and
resistance, whilst the former can build new
understandings and stronger relationships.
Assertive people are especially good at
expressing their current feelings and stating
their future needs.
Building trust and empathy is an essential
precursor to any attempt at influencing the
outcome of a negotiation or the resolution of a
dispute, and various techniques exist that can
help to create that trust. In particular, difficult
people are used to arguing for what they want,
but are not used to people listening to them.
So listen carefully, give them a proper hearing,
ask questions and explore mutual interests.
‘Mirroring’ (i.e. partially matching your
communication style to theirs) will help to
highlight the similarities between the parties,
rather than their differences. For instance, if
they are speaking more stridently or more
quietly than you are, modulate your own voice
to partly match theirs. Try smiling when they
smile, and use the same kind of words as they
do.
It’s a good idea to learn about your own ‘hot
buttons’ – the things that make you angry or
incensed. For some of us, it’s the implication
Copyright © Robert T J Marshall.
All rights reserved.
that we’re stupid, or perhaps that we’ve not
made enough effort. For others, injustice and
unfairness make their blood boil. If you don’t
know about your ‘hot buttons’ then you’ll be
vulnerable to other people making you angry
(and perhaps even irrational) just because
they’ve said the wrong thing to you. If you can
learn to moderate and control your reactions,
you’re more likely to have the upper hand.
A call to action
To get better-equipped and genuinely skilled at
dealing with difficult people, you’ll need to
consider three different aspects of human
interaction.
1. Change how you negotiate
Hard positional bargaining fails too often,
because it starts with the premise “I want
victory”. Principled Negotiation starts with the
premise “I want a wise outcome”. So think
about how you negotiate, be open to criticism
and improvement, try out some these ideas,
and help others to become better negotiators
too.
2. Learn how we communicate
Realise that the words people use are just one
(sometimes small) facet of communication,
and don’t underestimate the impact of voice
tone, eye movements and body language.
3. Learn to adapt your behaviour
Be assertive not aggressive, partially
synchronise your communication style, build
trust and empathy, be willing to explore options
and alternatives, and get to know your ‘hot
buttons’.
Robert Marshall provides training, support and advice in
negotiation, conflict resolution and communications for a
wide range of private and public sector clients worldwide.
He has worked as Director of Research & Business
Services at the University of East Anglia, Head of
Technology Transfer at the University of Cambridge, and
before that in manufacturing management, research
management and as a quality manager.
Robert has many years of practical experience in the
successful negotiation of commercial contracts and
agreements, and a long-standing professional interest in
the psychology of the workplace, staff motivation and
dispute resolution. robert@robertmarshall.co.uk -
www.robertmarshall.co.uk - +44-(0)1359 242685