Dealing with Differences in a World of Diversity

By Daniel Robin

This article outlines a process for dealing with adversarial behavior in others.

Adversary, or “enemy stance,” usually results from escalating a difference of some sort – making a progressively bigger and bigger deal out of differing views on priorities, goals, or methods. One or both parties make that difference into a problem, a push-pull, offense/defense, … sometimes a power struggle, or the desire to “right” exclusive, to “win” at the other person’s expense.

Such conflicts can be cloaked or overt, but they are based on the same dynamics – the will to fight, or lack of feedback (or lack of concern) about the effects of being offensive, uncooperative, or destructively argumentative.  Instead, in Part 2, this article outlines easy steps for keeping the conflict manageable and dealing with differences in a healthy context – before they become time- and energy-drainers.

Part 1.  The Defense Rests
Part 2:  Recognizing the Six Stages of Adversarial Escalation
Part 3:  Unblocking Communication Logjams

Or revert to the first article on this series on leadership with
Part 1:  Fail Often to Succeed Sooner

Part 1.  The Defense Rests

“Ted, you said you were going to call me with those figures … what happened?”

Ted’s button is pressed:  “Oh, you think the world revolves around you and your stupid little project…. Has it ever occurred to you, Jack, that the rest of us have jobs, too?!”

“Look, Ted, I know you’re busy.  … any time this millennium would be fine,” Jack said jokingly, but it made Ted feel put down.

With a cold stare, Ted calls a one-man walkout:  “Yeah, just do it … yourself!”

A common leadership mistake is to put up a defensive shield without knowing or acknowledging you are doing it.  A bigger mistake is to push on that defensive reaction and expect it to go anywhere but straight into the dumpster.

Most of us are unaware that, at times, we feel this powerful need to defend ourselves – it happens automatically, as if the other person’s out to get us, out to cause us harm.  Pointing out defensiveness, ironically, often produces more of the same (“I am not being defensive!”), amplifying the futility of persisting.

Prevention versus Cure

When do your own instincts say “Oops, better back off… struck a cord”?  For most of us, it’s a bit later than ideal.

When your own actions lead to raised hackles in someone else (“Did I just say something that offended you?”), instead of backing this person into a corner, stop, and ease off (“Back away from the human….”).  If you continue down that same track, one of three things will happen:  (a) Flight:  the person runs away in terror, hides, or tries to avoid you, (b) Fight:  the push-pull dynamic produces so much interpersonal friction you could heat your office with the energy it generates (energy that could have gone into other, more enjoyable pursuits), or (c) Cope:  they show enough emotional restraint, argue their case, attempt to be right or to save face.

It is unlikely that the situation will move toward a lasting solution, and yet, this subtle adversarial pattern runs deep in our culture and our actions.  How do we interrupt this defensive loop without causing more of it?

Serial Chiller:  Nobody Likes to be Put Down

Back in Part 4 of this article series, “Fix Systems, Not People,” we describe the human tendency to make the person the problem (see Leadership in Action – Part 4).  Instead, the idea is to see any issue as a systems problem – a broken process, a bogus procedure or job design, or a non-fault-tolerant environment – and lead toward improving the system, not towards “fixing” the person.  No matter how tactfully you might present their need to change, unless that person sees your assessment as specific, accurate, fair and executable (spells SAFE), you’ll have a power struggle or a dispute on your hands.  Certainly, there must be better ways.

This article outlines three … strategies to get the desired results without wasting energy in a push-pull, or having to clean up adversarial messes after interpersonal meltdowns.

1.      Recognize adversary before it clobbers you on the head – kapow! – and call for a ceasefire or just (quietly) institute a new gameplan.

2.      Handle resistance proactively before it turns into a dispute, a contest of wills, or a breakdown in cooperation.  (See our website, keyword “Resistance,” for Six Keys to Handling Resistance and other tips.)

3.      Think and act all win: look for a dovetailing of interests, generating options and alternatives to get there.  This is about listening, flexing (your brain, not your muscles), and blending ideas.

By leading toward mutual gain, the other party has less reason to treat you as if you are their adversary.  If you notice adversarial cues – for example, long periods of silence followed by accusations – start by surrendering enemy stance in yourself, then take a powerful, non-defensive stand for working it out:  “I’m not willing to fight with you about that.” Or, “I’m only interested in solutions that work for both of us.”

Part 2:  Recognizing the Six Stages of Adversarial Escalation

The fast track to avoiding push-pull friction – preventing escalation or breakdowns in cooperation – starts with becoming fully aware and watchful for signs of adversarial thinking or adversarial behavior.  With an “early warning system,” you can head off trouble by keeping the tone light, keeping the door open. Maintaining rapport and good will is essential to skillfully navigate the tricky waters of interpersonal differences.

Recognizing “where you are now” is key. The path of escalation usually unfolds like this:

1.  Triggering comment or action – a new issue or problem checks into town

One or both people say or do something that provokes defensiveness, irritation, frustration, resentment, discomfort, anger or fear.  Perhaps dealing with the issue at this level seems a bit confronting?  It probably is. But at least there are still choices available … you can choose to “deal” in a climate of cooperation and hope; failure to do so now limits options for future constructive resolution.  “Act now or forever lose the peace.”  Contact us for strategies.

2.  Proliferation of issues – “piling on”

One or both people start bringing up new issues (whether relevant or not) for expanding the basis for the disagreement.  Acting out of the adversarial framework, there’s often an attempt to demonstrate that a difference or issue exists, as if to prove “how bad it’s getting.”  Instead of piling on, a better move would be “sorting out” the issue(s), starting with separating the person from the problem.

3.  Formation of adversarial alliances – “choosing sides”

Right/wrong and win/lose thinking begins as one or both parties begin pulling in other people, resources, or positions for support of their original contention [while their intention gets lost or misunderstood].  Outside authority (e.g., so-and-so said they feel the same way) is offered as “proof” that the speaker is right.

4.  Distortion of communication – “being right”

One or both people begin to communicate through exaggeration and distortion; broad sweeping generalizations, deleting or ignoring some of key facts (often the key to interrupting this path – and jumping to a more constructive dialogue – is to refocus on these facts); sometimes anger or fear will cause character attacks followed by periods of silence.

5.  Rigid and extreme positions – “digging the hole deeper”

The harder people fight, the more entrenched they become.  One or both people become rigid and extreme in their positions, through depersonalizing and in some cases dehumanizing others, taking the position that “I’ll never give an inch,” in order to save face.  Coping strategies such as going numb or trying to avoid the whole mess ensue.  Solutions at this level come from looking for creative face-savings moves like admitting to a mistake, apologizing, or asking to declare a “new day.”

6.  Focus on hurting each other – “destroy or be destroyed”

Although the conflict may have begun with the goal of solving a problem, as both people become increasingly contentious or defensive, the goal shifts to hurting or attacking the other person’s position as having no validity.  Collaboration is not an option.  Stress clouds judgment.  Hope vanishes.  The most civilized option may be “alternative dispute resolution” approaches like mediation.  Passive-aggressive threats or attack-and-defend patterns cause a stalemate.

When there is a perceived or actual enemy stance, these stages usually provide clear signs that someone is making the issue into a problem worthy of a fight.  An entirely preventable example of this pattern is something we call “resisting resistance.”

If you maintain enough rapport, you’ll be able to sail on through pockets of resistance with minimal scraping or grinding – the soft underbelly of your interpersonal relationship will be unscathed – and it won’t look at all like the last presidential election, a championship rugby match, or courtroom litigation proceedings.  It might feel like there’s a slight mismatch – like something’s off a bit – so you can use that signal to make a slight course-correction to get back on track.

Part 3:  Unblocking Communication Logjams

This part provides reminders of how to effectively switch gears to prevent or unblock communication logjams.  Such logjams are a result of push-pull tension about goals, methods, or priorities.  Often there’s a posturing because of perceptions or misinterpretations about intent.  Implied blame can lead to defensiveness and an adversarial stance.  How can you tell when this is beginning to happen?  See Part 2 above.

When you notice the signals or signs of adversary, then what?  Short answer (though it takes practice) switch gears and temporarily put aside what you want.  Sounds unnatural and counter-intuitive?  Not what leaders normally do when somebody says harsh words like “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” or more subtle signals like “There’s no way that’s going to work” …. How would you normally respond to such statements?

(a)    Argue, perhaps with “I’ve got more experience in my little finger than …” or “Of course it’s going to work … you just don’t get it.”

(b)   Present the merits of your position or point of view.

(c)    Ask them to be more cooperative and open-minded.

(d)   Side with the person’s view for a moment and dig a little deeper into their mindset.

If your instincts do not currently make your next move something like (d), you’re in good company – by far the majority of professionals will take the bait and argue, push, or plead – but in this case, being “normal” is overrated.  Handle the resistance up front and it can prevent lots of mutual misery.

Why Should I Deal with Their Resistance?  It’s Their Issue?

To not notice or not handle a perceived mismatch puts that response-ability squarely in the hands of the other person.  Wouldn’t you rather take charge of the situation and head off a “situation” before it starts?   If you don’t, you’ll either witness escalation into a full-blown conflict (the result of “resisting their resistance”), or you’ll be dependent on someone else to notice and respond skillfully on your behalf.  Success would depend on their ability to do something to handle your resistance.  It’s a risk worth avoiding.

The expression “it takes two to tango” applies here, because if one party steps off the conflict escalation “dancefloor,” there can be no battle: “Though I disagree, I’m not going to fight with you about that.”  If one party takes responsibility for managing the resistance, especially when it seems minor, no escalation will occur, and the perceived level of conflict will remain low enough that you can get a good result through collaborative problem solving.  Any other dance move (hip-hop, slam, twist & shout …) will lead to something less desirable – chaos, power struggles, the will to fight, the need to be “right,” loss of trust – convincing the other party that an impasse has been reached and you’re being “difficult” or uncooperative.

Basic Moves for Handling Resistance

Simply start with listening and verifying, by stepping into their shoes, looking at the situation from their point of view; or, if its getting heated, discuss your intention to “work out” your differences.  The most important thing is to NOT LEAD toward your goal for a bit.  Give them a chance to be heard – even if you disagree, you can still demonstrate that you understand their reasoning.  By learning what underpins their resistance, you can negotiate with more power in a way that maintains rapport and interpersonal cooperation.  See keyword resistance (ABetterWorkplace.com/resistance) for additional tools.

The early stages of dealing with differences – where you still have the most choices mutually available – are the most important. Differences inevitably crop up; the skill is to keep the perceived level of conflict manageable, tolerable.  Only then can you reliably prevent or unblock communication logjams.

Control Isn’t Even for the Birds

By Daniel Robin

This article series outlines a process for shifting away from the need to control and into guiding, organizing and structuring work so that the desired results are obtained with less effort and more reliably in the long-run.  See the prior articles in this series at ABetterWorkplace.com/leadership.

Part 1:  Letting Go Into Structure

Increasingly, smart leaders apply just enough energy or attention to facilitate a shift in the desired direction.  Through harnessing organizational leverage points, designing and modeling healthy workplace culture, and “disturbing” systems so that they self-organize, the proverbial “all-win” situation is made manifest.  No “control” necessary.

Conventional “control” is simply not the goal.  Instead, consider building structures and collaborative systems that obviate the need for direct control.  Not only are such approaches more energy efficient (less effort, greater impact) but they also happen to be more fun, effective and sustainable in the long run.  For most of us, however, this form of “smart leadership” is neither familiar nor field-tested.

Tough question:  if it’s so smart, why isn’t everybody doing it?  Healthy skepticism about exerting less control is usually accompanied by the fundamental disbelief that an easier way could exist.  There are three factors central to shifting the assumption that control is necessary:

1)      Recognition of how much “control” actually costs us,

2)      Realization that what’s familiar and habitual is certainly comfortable, but not necessarily smart, and

3)      Like anything new, successfully operating “out of control” takes willingness to experiment and practice.

The Two-edge Sword of Control

The word “control” has a dubious reputation.  On the one hand, it is considered the high water mark of leadership to be “in control” (or at least to appear that way).  The harsh reality of leadership, however, is that a business cannot be directed along a linear path.  Never mind that hardly anybody likes to be “controlled” — to attempt to move in a straight line is like trying to teach a pig to sing:  it wastes your time and greatly annoys the pig.

We each prefer a different amount of responsibility, authority, and control in our relationships.  No two leaders are exactly alike (see our website for research from 26,000 individuals).  But all of us have the tendency to use either too much or too little control as compensation for something else … for some, it’s a baseline fear that people won’t want to cooperate, or unconscious self-doubt or feelings of inadequacy, or other excuses or restrictions that we put on ourselves.  This may inhibit our ability to relax, to guide not push, to have things flow easily rather than through force and pressure.  With time, this racks up quite a bill in human wear and tear.  What’s your tab?

Logical and Linear?  It’s Not Even for the Birds!

Certainly, at times, we all crave clear direction, sharp decision-making, or a single-minded plan for “winning” in the marketplace.  A startling shift in the assumptions that underpin leadership has caused business people to rethink how to best provide that direction, what decision making responsibility is optimal, and how we might re-vision “winning” as getting where we all would want to go – without knowing in advance exactly where that is or how to get there.

Surprisingly, even top-down organizations like the US Army have discovered this:  operate more like an evolving, living system than a linear, logical, predicable machine.  That same awareness has inspired major corporations to give up rigid control in favor of self-organizing and adaptive structures.  Although this approach is consistent with “the way things are” (laws of nature), it feels quite unnatural at first to let go of anything – as traditional efforts to control and order things do serve a positive intention.

What Kind of Control Controls You?

If we describe control as “decision-making authority, ability to influence, ownership …” then most leaders would say it’s desirable.  But when it comes to others exerting control over us, less than 14% of today’s workforce wants to be told what to do (and roughly one forth of these resent their dependency).  The vast majority range from “rebels” (38%) to the more take-chargers (7%), self-confidents (10%), or narcissists (3%); the remaining 28% fall somewhere between rebels and zealots.

Given that so few people look to outside authority to shape their behavior, and traditional leaders often try to do exactly that, it’s no wonder there’s built-in tension and conflict between management and workers.   The next article explores ways to bridge this gap while using the laws of nature to make better leaders in a better workplace.

Part 2:  Control is Overrated

In the right context, control is a wonderful and admittedly rare thing.  Have you ever had a boss that was right on top of the priority issues and neither accepted nor cast blame for the way things are; they could admit a mistake but also knew when to put down their foot, saying “enough is enough;” and they used their positional power in a way that commanded lasting respect?  (If not, think about leaders like M. L. King, Jr., Gandhi, or the exact inverse of Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss).

What or who, exactly, was that boss controlling?  You?  Your peers?  Others?  Not likely. This person was in control of their own actions, urges, and ambition … responding, not reacting to change.  Rolling with the unfolding plan ….

This process is not entirely unlike ocean surfing.  You don’t get to tell the wave what to do; at best, you get to (a) pick the right wave, (b) handle yourself in a way so as not to drown in the forces already set in motion, and (c) enjoy the ride.  Natural systems are a close analog to most organization in that they “happen” whether or not the executive leaders plan it that way.  Sure, we have some control, but not nearly as much as many of us assume we do.

Controlling The Urge to Control

The thing is, nobody likes to be controlled; feeling corralled or “moved along” too forcefully brings up nearly everyone’s boundary and authority issues.  We are not cattle.  The “new deal” of leadership is about creating a context conducive to people and the organization itself getting what’s wanted without having to control those outcomes.  Guide and help set direction, certainly, but don’t push the river.  It’s a matter of respect, and happens to be what works.

Control of our own affairs, of our work and our life, is a highly desirable commodity; loss of control is considered a sign of weakness, defeat.  We crave the feeling of being in charge, of being the “master of one’s destiny” able to powerfully influence our own success.  But if we attempt to control others, they may reject our lead or rebel irrationally, simply because we didn’t give them a chance to “choose in” from their own authority.

Shared Power and Decision-making Authority

If you disagree with a decision, and you care enough to actually speak out, do your concerns get heard and acknowledged?  Being taken seriously is something we earn through our actions, but wise leaders encourage feedback, invite differing views, ask pointed questions so they can make informed decisions.

When it’s best for one person to decide, an expert opinion is needed; is the person deciding truly the expert, or do they just feel strongly about the matter?  If they’re controlling or dominating the decision inappropriately, failing to ask for help (some people are just used to flying solo and they literally forget to consult with others), it can damage relationships.  If our attempts to persuade aren’t acknowledged, we’re likely to withdraw over time, and eventually we’ll learn how to not care.

No Involvement, No Commitment

Controlling and excluding others trains them to withhold what they know … after being shut out once too often, the attitude becomes “If you’re so smart, you figure it out!”  After all, we’re not just paid to show up, shut up, and work; each one of us has an independent will and unique vantage point.  Value it.

Although there are times to avoid confronting an issue (when handling an emergency, when the situation is too hot to handle, …. ), more often, this lack of inclusion results in an undiscussable, lose-lose dynamic.  That’s where others “cave in” to our leadership and demonstrate obedience and compliance rather than commitment to results.

Part 3 explores how to let go of the need to control, providing several tools that make it easier.

Part 3:  Tools for Letting go of the Need to Control

As we’ve discussed, control is not a two-way street.  On the one hand, everyone likes to feel that they are “in control,” in charge of their work life, masters of their own destiny.  But few of us (less than 10%) like to be “controlled” by another person.

Indeed, for professionals, the ability to “control yourself” – organizing your day to meet complex challenges, letting an adversarial impulse pass, or refusing to let someone else push your buttons in the first place – is at once a virtue and a confidence booster.  But trying to control others is a throwback to when “command & control” leadership was seen by employees as a sign of insecurity and “power tripping,” and praised by other managers as a sign of strength, order and discipline.

In today’s workplace, realizing that people cannot be “controlled” – at best they can be persuaded or guided – the need to control others is like an accident waiting to happen.  With time, over-control leads to communication breakdowns, as “undiscussability” results when the person gets defensive or tries to control the conversation, virtually ensuring a lose-lose.

Controlling behavior includes being pushy and directive, ordering people around when there’s no real emergency, restricting other people’s choices arbitrarily, or covertly “manipulating” to get your way … Anything that attempts to enforce “what I want, when and how I want it” as the one right way.

Are There Alternatives?

“A job needs to be done,” leaders often say, “I can’t just wait and see if it pleases my subordinates to show up for work and perform!”  True, the opposite of control is not passivity, or pretending not to care.  The best tools are self-organizing, collaborative.  For example, to launch a project, conduct a “good faith” negotiation to discover (a) if there’s a clear and complete agreement about what’s wanted, (b) who is the right person for the job, and (c) what they might need or want to be successful.  Then support, guide, and encourage peak performance.  What’s control got to do with it?!

Once the basics are in place, when the guidelines and context are mutually understood, let the experiment unfold.  See what emerges.  That’s much less work than controlling and commanding to get a certain result.  Do not accept “false responsibility” (more than your fair share) for obtaining those results.  If you’ve co-created a healthy container for the work to be done, there’s a sense of “being in this together” that makes control the booby prize.

Stay out of the way of the experiment, then take time to review the results.  You’ll never know their true capabilities if you constantly check.  As the saying goes, you know you’re a micromanager when you “pull up the sod every day to see if there are roots yet.”

Questions Drive Results

The intention behind the controlling behavior is always positive:  get a result, get the job done.  To convert the overinvolved, overcaring behavior into a more workable approach, an excellent tool is simply to ask:  “Could I let go of needing to control this situation?” and “What would happen if I did?”  You are not asking “Could I let go of control?” This is about releasing just the perceived need to control.  There’s no point in asking to let go of something with such a positive intention.  It won’t happen.  But the need to control, the energy-draining, white-knuckled grip is often optional.

If the person tries to control everything, then ask, “Could I let go of the need to control (in general)?”  Or, “Could I initially let go of just 10% to see what happens?”

Collaborative leadership ultimately takes less time and yields better results than having to “run the show.”  What are some of your favorite tools for making this transition from “control” to self-organizing “structure” at your workplace?

Four Steps to Handling Aggressive Impulses

By Daniel Robin

This article series outlines a process for dealing with hostile or aggressive impulses in yourself and others while staying true to the good intentions they rode in on.  See the prior two articles on this topic, the broader series Action in Leadership or our coursework at ABetterWorkplace.com/leadership.

Some leaders get heavy-handed as a poor substitute for skillful assertiveness.  Unaware of the consequences of their actions (yes, there are consequences), they barrel through projects as if it were a public bullfight where everybody else gets to be the bull.  Result: angry and resentful, well, bulls – that is, people who are usually quite cooperative, now reduced to looking for a time when the thick-skinned “toreador” looks away, stumbles, forgets to cover their blind side (we all have one, and it isn’t necessarily our backside), or some other way to even the score.

Other leaders, when caught up in the “passion of the moment,” may know exactly how to assert what they want, but unwittingly let frustrations build up inside until what eventually does come across is rude, abrupt and borderline abusive.

Often the first scenario (not knowing how to skillfully address an issue) feeds into the second (frustrations that turn into aggressive or passive-aggressive behavior), and we end up with clumsy, emotional or abrasive outbursts.  When leadership turns overly aggressive, using abrupt or hostile directives to get what’s wanted (or passively expecting others to mindread), the risks and downsides outweigh any potential rewards.  It just isn’t worth it.

Here are four steps to dealing more skillfully with anger impulses.  If it’s “habit anger” that’s running your show (that is, you’re angry most of the time), this process may still help, but also consider seeking outside, professional assistance.  You can find several additional resources at ABetterWorkplace.com/anger.

Try ANYTHING Else

Step 1.  Notice your most prevalent approach to anger and aggression, and do the opposite.

If your habit has been to express anger in the moment, try suppressing it for awhile; and if your habit is to suppress it, practice expressing it.  If you’re not sure about your dominant style, contact us for our quick self-assessment instrument.

For example, if you tend to not speak up (actively pushing aside or swallowing anger), then practice speaking plainly and directly in the moment.  The next article will round out the toolset for dealing with sticky situations, such as the need to confront long-standing issues.

If you tend to “go off” immediately, realizing that adrenaline and a life-or-death sense of urgency fuel and perpetuate the “causal chain,” it may take a lot of will power (and courage) to allow yourself to interrupt the action.  Calm yourself.  Take a deep breath.  Practice putting aside the impulse to act (a reaction).  Notice it, and put it aside.  Perhaps count to 10, then count again, more slowly – anything to slow down anger’s hormonal urge and chemical surge.

Step 2.  Use the power of anger to heat your house.  No.  Just kidding.  Just Notice It.

Once you’ve become familiar with using the opposite style, the next step is simply to notice the anger itself so you can, on occasion, choose to do NOTHING with it at all.

Neither express nor suppress.  This is akin to simply being aware that there’s anger present and choosing to take no action whatsoever.

The key here, of course, is not to be overly identified (not to mistake or confuse who you are) with your feelings.  You are not that.  Feelings come and go like the tides.  Think about something important, like a core value, and breathing … notice how quickly perspective returns.

And what does it feel like to find a moment of peace within all the storming and performing … a place, a moment, to be who you are, without needing to “do” anything?

Step 3.  Notice the Source.

By noticing the source of anger, you can powerfully assert what you want changed, rather than be aggressive about what has to change, giving away power.

Anger can mask pain or hurt, sadness, or fear … if there is something you want to avoid that the anger is trying to tell you, you’re likely to produce more of it!  Filters are great for making our experiences more manageable in the moment.  When you penetrate anger, it often delivers something of far greater value than acting on the original impulse.  See if you can identify any surprising origins.  What boundary are you protecting through anger’s big and intense mask?

Note that analyzing strong feelings (and the chemical pathways that allow you to have them) can be disorienting, even confusing.  Your gut is telling you something, so your self-talk needs to be about finding that cause, and nothing else.  Do not try to talk yourself in to or out of the feeling; don’t accept secondary feelings of guilt, shame, or remorse, resentment or indignance; if anything, go to the center of the original feeling and tell yourself the truth about it.

Step 4.  Decide How To Use It

Perhaps the question is either how to be “civilized” (cooperative) without being a push-over, or how to be clear and direct (perhaps even blunt) without causing damage.  When you’re angry or agitated, is it even possible to be both compassionate and powerful, considerate of others and courageous at the same time? Decide what you’ll do to handle aggressive urges going forward.

Anger has a bad reputation, is often seen as a curse, something to get rid of.  Suppressed anger can literally make you sick.  Anger expressed irresponsibly or directed at a person unable to stand their ground can be devastating.  So how do we turn this “curse” into leadership ability?  By noticing its source and using that awareness to be assertive and cooperative, we get things done within a much healthier and happier workplace.

Healthy Assertiveness – Pushy or Passionate?

By Daniel Robin

Leadership that’s born of passion – blending skill and intensity with well-orchestrated flurries of activity – can be inspiring to others as a sign of commitment and strength.  But when that leadership is tinged with hostility, becomes passive-aggressive, or relies on heavy-handedness … there’s a price.  What was a positive intention is no longer sustainable – even if it appears to get near-term results.  This article is about ways to “get there from here” with far less interpersonal wear and tear.

Have you been around someone whose goal wasn’t merely the organization’s agenda, but it became their own personal mission?   Like a fire lit deep inside, they take the “hunt” so seriously they are a force to be reckoned with.  Were they easy to work with or did they cross over a line with you?

Politely Aggressive vs. Obnoxiously Assertive

What are the signals of assertiveness versus aggressiveness? The line between “strongly assertive” and “mildly aggressive” is as gray as Donald Trump’s real hair color. The difference can be as subtle as the look in someone’s eyes, the rate or rhythm of gestures, their tone of voice or choice of words ….  Polite but aggressive is status quo in many organizations.

Individual perceptions, tastes, and workstyles differ sharply (if “raising your voice” was accepted in your family of origin, it probably remains so today), but let’s not dance around this:  when someone is being pushy, demanding, forceful and rude … it isn’t hard to tell.  The only “grayness” about it is whether that behavior is acceptable to you and those around you.

Extremely pushy people expect those who get stepped on or brushed off to “deal with it.”  However, resentment builds slowly, and then they retaliate (“hostile work environment” lawsuits, or they take it underground and complain to others).  Overly aggressive leaders are sometimes ignored or laughed at (if they’re lucky); either way, this racks up quite a bill in the aggressor’s credibility and emotional bank account.

There’s often an unfair double-standard for male and female leaders:  what in men may be seen as healthy assertiveness, in women may be interpreted as being overly aggressive.

Triggers of Mistrust

Studies have shown that consistency is what’s most important in forming perceptions about a healthy work climate.  If someone is usually calm and assertive, but occasionally lashes out or gets edgy, we can probably learn to live with it.  If they’re consistently and fiercely pursuing their goals, we can read their signals, and even if we don’t like being around it, we can at least trust where they’re coming from (obsessive-compulsive behavior is highly predictable).

But if someone is quiet and seemingly docile one minute, then some invisible trigger causes them to act like a saber-toothed tiger – and only much later does the pussycat return – then this unpredictable shift between fanged beast and normal human causes the worst kind of fear and mistrust – the kind where you cannot exactly pinpoint the threat.  Made worse when the person has positional power, the ambiguity itself, and how it keeps people guessing, causes a cycle of mistrust that soon becomes sealed and undiscussable.

Let’s say, for example, that the boss has yelling fits, and like a well-tuned immune system, tends to yell whenever that subject dares to come up.  Thus begins a cloaked pattern of abuse, adding up to an insidious code of silence that usually requires intervention from someone outside the system.

To avoid all this, it is essential that leaders stay well inside the bounds of “healthy assertiveness,” as defined by their peers and subordinates.  If they can cross over the line into aggressiveness with awareness (even if the spasms cannot be “controlled” in the moment), they can remain conscious of the line itself, demonstrating a willingness to receive feedback about how it affects people.