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 extroverted perfectionist, you probably have high expectations not only of yourself, but also of others. You may also say what you think more often: "If you were to work more efficiently, we would be finished long ago!", "You have no idea what you're talking about!" or "Let me do it, you just can't do it!" Could such sentences come from you? And then you wonder sometimes that other people are bad to speak 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 right one and that she can best implement the somewhat diffuse specifications of her boss: "I have experience with the customers and know how they will react. Trust me!" And although the majority of the team do not share their opinion and the employees try to convince colleagues with good and factual arguments, they remain stubborn in the opinion that they are right and talk to their colleagues until they finally annoyed theirs Give up position.
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's about who takes on a new project, who receives how much budget or who does what - discussions are the order of the day in everyday work. As a perfectionist, you may have a reputation for always being right and making yourself unpopular with many colleagues and employees. You probably see it quite differently: "I just want to try to get my opinion through - others do that too!" However, there are some rhetorical tricks that will help you skillfully convince others without them speaking to you on the wall or being offended because they think they have been attacked. Questioning techniques help you to express your opinion, but at the same time find constructive solutions together with the group. If you consciously address and involve others, you also skillfully 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 have had other experiences with it. "The typical behavior of a perfectionist would now be to argue wildly - after all, you want to be right, don't you?
Your colleague made a suggestion that you don't like at all. First, ask for more specific information: "How exactly?" "All?" "How many percent?" "Who was involved?" "Who was affected?" "Who was responsible?" "What happened?" "Would you like to report how it was?" Then use a question of understanding to distract yourself and let the other person explain: "Did I understand you correctly, you say that.."
Please a little less directly!
Another situation: you made a proposal to divide up the budget in your department and explained why it would benefit everyone. A colleague assesses the consequences of your proposal much more negatively than yourself, for example: "That sounds nice, but I think it would waste the budget."
You should not attack the colleague directly now, for example by saying: "You are only afraid of getting less!", But to find out whether the new division would actually lead to the presumed consequences or whether others are to be expected. For example, ask your colleague why: "Why is your solution the best?" "Why is option 1 preferable to option 2?" "What reasons do we have to reject this idea?" Ask this question consciously to everyone, including yourself. This will make it clear that you are also thinking. If you just put them to others, they come through the "Why?" into a compulsion to justify - that creates resistance!
Have we thought of everything?
Ask all colleagues to think about the possible consequences: "Have we considered all the consequences?" "What else can come of it?" "Are there alternatives?" "Did we forget 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 going?" "What can happen if we still don't solve the problem?" Or exaggerate the possible consequences and make it clear that things cannot get that bad and that the clairvoyants have hopelessly exaggerated: "What can happen in the worst case if we choose this option?"
You are discussing and want to convince some colleagues or employees to take on a certain task. 'Your suggestions are rejected. A colleague contradicts you by referring to a generally accepted consensus: "That is nice, but we all know that it is far too idealistic: Nobody works more than he absolutely has to." The trick is simple: the majority are not wrong, something that everyone knows is practically irrefutable. If you do, there is something wrong with you - at least that is how you feel and therefore you have little chance to express your opinion. But is the general opinion correct? Just make you think:
So you invalidate majority arguments
- Find out why one position is important for the other your colleagues: "What is particularly important for you?" "What is the focus here for you here?"
- Then ask how someone got their point of view: "What made you see the situation / interpret it this way?"
- Break down the general perspective on individual cases by differentiating: "This applies to this case, but does it also apply to ...?", "Did this act fit there - but how is it in this context?"
- Invite the other participants to change their perspective: "If we look at it from the customer's perspective: How would he see it?" "How do you think our boss would react?"
- Naively and critically review the requirements and beliefs contained in an opinion: "Hm, what does it actually mean when you think idealistically?" "Since when did everyone know that?" This will make the other participants think.
Trust is good, control is better
Back to Vanessa, who has another problem. Because she has no confidence in the skills of her colleagues. She believes that the only way to make the project a success is to do everything herself instead of dividing the work into a team. In the end, however, customers are anything but satisfied with Vanessa's ideas, which then have to revise everything. The project will not be finished in time, because Vanessa has simply taken over. But she cannot simply admit her mistake, but tries to justify herself with all sorts of explanations and logical arguments: "You misunderstood me ... certainly this solution was not optimal, but in the end it did lead to the goal." A bossiness that bothers the team and the boss quite a bit: "She thinks she can 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
- Only praise if you really mean it. Real recognition comes from the gut, it is filled with joy about something - others notice whether it is authentic or not. If you feel the feeling, share it: "I noticed that you really put a lot of effort into it."
- 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...
