Teamwork and communication with difficult personalities: Make yourself easier
// By Simone Janson
There are people with whom you just get along well - and personalities that are demanding and exhausting. And maybe you are one of them? How can that be changed?
Always these high expectations
As a typical extrovert perfectionist you probably have high standards not only for yourself, but also for others. You may also often say directly what you think: "If you worked more efficiently, we would already be done!", "You have no idea what you're talking about!" Or "Let me do that, you can just not! "Could such sentences come from you? And then you occasionally wonder that other people are bad at talking to you?
In these moments, it is you who criticizes others and makes demands! In principle, that's nothing wrong. It's probably you who immediately point out new vulnerabilities that need to be addressed, or drive the workgroup to success. They also tend to say it well and do not say such things out of malice or to annoy other people. But it must also be clear to you: Other people think differently from you and do not always respond to your most well intentioned intentions as you would imagine. That can become a problem.
Only I know what is right?
Vanessa had to know that, too. She should lead a project group. But as a typical perfectionist, it's difficult for them to compromise within the team.
Vanessa is simply convinced that her approach is the only one that works best and that she can best implement her boss's somewhat vague guidelines: "I have experience with clients and know how they will react. Trust me! "And even though the majority of the team does not share their opinion and the colleagues are trying to convince colleagues with good and factual arguments to persuade them, they remain stubborn that they are right and talk to their colleagues for so long, until they finally give up their position unnerved.
Uncompromising to the mark
Go inside yourself: Are you ready to compromise? Are you ready to give up an attitude in order to reach a goal (together with others)? And what price are you willing to pay to get something that you want?
Not all colleagues always agree. Whether it is about who takes over a new project, who receives how much budget or who takes over which tasks - discussions are the order of the day in the daily work routine. As a perfectionist, you may have the reputation of always being right, making yourself unpopular with many colleagues and employees. You probably see it in a different way: "I just want to try to get my opinion across - that's what others do!" There are, however, some rhetorical tricks that will convince others to skillfully convince others without them Wand talk or feel offended because they believe they have been attacked. Questioning techniques help you to express your opinion, but at the same time find constructive solutions together with the group. When you consciously address and involve others, you also deftly pull your own position out of the line of fire.
Bossiness in the discussion
Imagine, you discussed with others a project idea. SomeoneA colleague puts forward a thesis that completely invalidates your previously made statement and thus puts your opinion into question, eg "That sounds nice, but we've had a different experience ... "The typical behavior of a perfectionist would be to argue wildly - after all, you want to be right, do not you?
Your colleague has made a suggestion that you do not like at all. First ask for more specific information: "How exactly?" "Everyone?" "What percentage?" "Who was involved?" "Who was involved?" "Who was responsible?" "What happened?" "Would you? Report how that was concretely? "Then with a question of understanding rhetorically cleverly distract from yourself and let the other explain:" Did I understand you correctly, you say that .... "
Please a little less directly!
Another situation: You made a proposal to divide the budget in your department and explained why that would be beneficial for everyone. A colleague, however, assesses the consequences of your proposal much more negatively than you do, such as: "That sounds nice, but I think that would be wasted budget."
You should not attack your colleague directly by saying, "You're just scared to get less!", But find out if the new split would actually lead to the supposed consequences, or if there are others to be expected. For example, ask your colleague for his reasoning: "Why is your solution the best?" "Why is option 1 option preferable to 2?" "What are our reasons for rejecting this idea?" Ask this question to everyone, too yourself. They make it clear that you too are thinking along. If you only put them to others, they come through the "why" in a justification constraint - that creates resistance!
Have we thought of everything?
Ask all colleagues to consider what possible consequences there might be: "Have we considered all the consequences?" "What else can come out of this?" "Are there any alternatives?" "Have we forgotten something?"
If you do not like the opinion of another colleague, you can deliberately lead the others into a dead end, to make clear the absurdity of the fears - that's much funnier and more interesting than simply arguing against it. It also makes it clear that it's better to act instead of staying idle - and have the laughs on your side. Just ask:
Turn the problem around
"What do we have to do to keep the problem alive?" "What can happen if we continue to solve the problem?" Or you overstate possible consequences and make it clear that it can not be so bad and that the Doomsayers hopelessly exaggerated: "What can happen in the worst case, if we choose this option?"
They discuss and want to persuade some colleagues or employees to take on a specific task. , Your suggestions are rejected, A colleague contradicts you by relying on a common consensus: "That's nice, but we all know that this is far too idealistic: No one works more than he absolutely must." The trick is simple: the majority is not wrong, something that everyone knows is virtually irrefutable. If you do, there is something wrong with you - at least that's how you feel and so you have little chance of expressing your opinion. But is the general opinion right? Just think about it:
So you invalidate majority arguments
- Find out why one position is important to the others for your colleagues: "What is especially important to you?" "What's in your favor here?"
- Then ask how someone came to his view, "What made you think the situation was that way?"
- Break down the general perspective on individual cases by distinguishing: "That applies to this case, but does that also apply to ...?", "That action fit in there - but how is that in this context?"
- Invite the other attendees to change perspective: "If we look at it from the customer's perspective, how would he see that?" "How do you think our boss would react?"
- Review naively-critically the assumptions and beliefs contained in an opinion: "Well, what does it mean when you think idealistically?" "Since when did everyone know that?" It makes the other participants think.
Trust is good, control is better
Back to Vanessa, who has another problem. She has no confidence in the skills of her fellow employees. She believes that she can only make the project a success if she does everything herself instead of dividing up the work in a team. In the end, however, the customers are anything but satisfied with Vanessa's ideas, which then have to revise everything again. The project will not finish in time, because Vanessa has simply taken over. But she can not simply admit her mistake, but tries to justify herself with all sorts of explanations and logical sounding arguments: "You misunderstood me ... certainly this solution was not optimal, but ultimately it has led to the goal." A dogmatism, the The team and the boss pretty annoying: "She means she knows and knows everything better!"
If you want to work productively with other colleagues in the long run, you should also pay tribute and respect to them. Even if you believe only the boss can praise his employees, because recognition is one of the strongest links between people. It therefore works wonders for the relationship between colleagues.
As a perfectionist with high standards and to others, you are therefore losing some sympathy when you only criticize colleagues or employees. You would not have to change much, because it's not about singing praises of praise everywhere. It helps if you only perceive the achievements of others a little more attentively and do not compare your colleagues or employees with each other or with yourself. For what is natural for one is a challenge for the other, whose mastery deserves real praise. Because praise is for motivation and relationships like fertilizer. Well-dosed it can strengthen, but too liberal and distributed in the wrong place, it destroys a whole crop. Therefore, keep some rules in mind so that well-intentioned praise does not fail.
That's how your praise goes
- Praise only if you really mean it. Real recognition comes from the gut, it is filled with joy about one thing - others notice whether it is authentic or not. If you feel it, tell it, "I noticed that you really tried hard."
- Sometimes non-verbal praise is more convincing than a rant. Smile your colleagues encouragingly, keep your thumbs up, tap your colleague or co-worker on the shoulder and find your own way of expressing yourself.
- Check critically: Do you follow an intention with praise?...
