CAT

Dealing with "Difficult" People

Paul Preston, Ph.D., professor of management, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, Florida

l i n ifficult" is a label that people often apply to those with whom they have a
U conflict or those who may display resistance to an idea. It is based on per-
ception, not reality. Part of a healthcare executive's job is to persuade and inform
highly intelligent and highly trained men and women who are engaged in some
of the most complex and important tasks in the world. Because of their profession
(whether they are in clinical or nonclinical roles), most healthcare professionals
are driven to succeed, are single minded about their goals, ask a lot of questions,
are dedicated to their practices, and have a strong work ethic. Cetting their at-
tention is often a challenge because of their busy schedules. Persuading them is
even harder, as they tend to be unwilling to compromise or be flexible. These are
characteristics that cause executives to label these professionals "difficult."
The first step in handling these types of people is to drop the view and the
label that they are "difficult." Change brings out difficult behavior. Otherwise per-
sonable people can become causes of confiict and can attack if they do not agree
with or feel threatened by the change. Thus, you must temper your use of the word
so as not to cloud your judgment about others.
The term is used here merely for convenience, but it should never be used
when making a direct reference to another person. The following tactics will guide
executives in interacting or communicating with people who may be considered
difficult.

GIVE BACK WHAT YOU TAKE

Difficult people may not admit they are difficult, but they tend to respect only
those whom they deem to be as tough as they are. Tough subordinates are best
managed by a hard-nosed, autocratic manager. Such managers do not give such
subordinates much slack, expecting them to state their wishes and needs in ex-
plicit, direct language and to perform and produce by specific standards. On the
reverse side, difficult or tough superiors must be given tough respect—that is, the
subordinate must maintain an honest, direct, and uncompromising stance. The
employee of the tough boss must do his or her homework to support his or her
opinions, position, and work. Generally, difficult bosses respect and rely on those
subordinates who know how to keep-up with their high-level demands. Of course,
diplomacy suggests that even when dealing with the toughest of bosses there is
a time to agree, to fall into line, and to cease opposition. Many managers I have
interacted with report that they prefer a tough boss over one who is tentative or

367
JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT 50:6 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005

collaborative. Their reason is that the difficult boss will show and give respect
when challenged.

MASTER THE DETAILS

Most difficult people are detail oriented; they are equipped to argue their points.
Imagine yourself in a confrontation with such a person without preparation or
inadequate information. That is purely and simply foolish on your part. The only
effective counter in this situation is to prepare just as diligently as you must as-
sume the other person is preparing. Cut no corners. Leave nothing to chance.

BE A W A R E O F E M O T I O N A L RESPONSES
At one time or another, everyone has succumbed to an emotional appeal. Diffi-
cult people often exploit others' emotions to render these people off balance and
vulnerable. For example, an employee with a negative attitude may share a sympa-
thetic story with another coworker to gain approval and support for himself An
argumentative board member may use silent treatment during a decision-making
meeting to pique other board members' anger or empathy and thus cause distur-
bance and delay. In these cases, knowing your personal emotional triggers may
be your best defense and preparation—that is, other people cannot use emotional
tactics on you if you are aware of how you respond and how you can control your
response. Using emotional tactics to subdue a difficult person is problematic, as it
can cause a confrontation and can quickly escalate out of control.

NEVER ADMIT TOHAVING THE FINAL AUTHORITY

Difficult people will frequently try to get their "opponent" to make a premature
commitment. They are helped along when the other person announces that he or
she is the final authority on an issue. Despite the fact that you may actually be the
final authority, you should never share that information, especially with someone
who can use it against you. Doing so can help you maintain flexibility, especially
when a negotiation with a difficult person is the only way out of a heated conflict.

LISTEN ACTIVELY AND CAREFULLY

Listen with empathy to the other person's point of view, and look for ways to
show him or her that you understand this perspective even if you do not agree. Pay
close attention to the other party's objections and concerns, and remember that
words (whether used in seriousness or in jest) do have meanings. Remain honest
and worthy of trust, even if the other party shows no signs of either trait. Your
actions with this individual will send a powerful message to others with whom
you deal, suggesting to them how you may be expected to behave toward them
on other issues. Show of respect does not obligate you to modify your position or
your mind {Atlanta Journal-Constitution 2001).

368
 COMMUNICATION

EXPECT P L E A S A N T CONFLICTS
Challenging people can be charming, polished, and persuasive. However, do not
be misled, as such people are also very determined to get an advantage over you.
A pleasant difficult person is more enjoyable to deal with than a bitter, offensive
opponent, but both groups have the same agenda: to get what they want at your
expense.

BE PATIENT
Time can work for you in conflict situations. By delaying a confrontation, you
create pressure for the other party while demonstrating your control over the sit-
uation. Waiting also allows a volatile situation to depressurize.

CHECK YOUR RESPONSE T O NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

Lashing back at negative feedback only escalates conflict with a difficult person.
Instead, step back, listen, and watch that your facial expression is not giving away
your real reaction. When you have received the extent of the feedback, thank the
person for expressing his or her views and calmly state whether or not you agree.
If the other party is not willing to listen to your response, then the best next step
is to end the exchange and decide to pick it up again at another time. This way,
neither party can prolong the attack nor contribute even fiarther to the damage that
the conflict has already done to the relationship.
Raising your voice to regain control or defending your position by matching
the negative feedback is not useful, although doing so may make you feel better
for a short time. If the negative feedback is coming from someone with whom
you will only deal once, then there's no harm in letting that person know of your
frustration. However, most healthcare relationships are not a once-only interaction.
People who criticize our decisions and are compelled to give us negative feedback
are as vested in their work as we are and are often those with whom we must
work day after day. Thus, a momentary "flash-out" can cost months (even years)
of recriminations. An emotional response to feedback will only serve to convince
the other person that his or her negative perception of you is correct.

P R E V E N T " L O S S OF F A C E "
Showing respect for the other person's opinions, even if you do not agree, is often
enough to stem "loss of face"—that is, embarrassment from either not convincing
the other party to back down or not achieving the intended goal. Your acceptance
of the difficult person's arguments does not suggest agreement. Rather, it provides
the person an avenue for a graceful retreat, at least for the time being.

CONCLUSION
The pressures of caregiving; limitations of operating and managing under tight
budgets and strict regulations; and emotional components of medicine, illness.

369
JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT 50:6 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005

workplace politics, and basic human interaction are the sources of healthcare con-
flicts that in turn fuel problematic or difficult behavior. The effective leader is able
to deal with this behavior professionally, not personally. By doing so, the leader
encourages high level of commitment and performance from all the stakeholders
of the organization.

Reference
Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2001. "WorkSmart." Atlanta Journal-Constitution (June 24): Rl.

For more information on the concepts in this column, please contact Paul
Preston at ppreston@www.com.

370