The stress-testing reframe is a good one. Can't tell you how many times I've wondered, "why are they being so critical of this pretty straightforward proposal," only to find out that the person actually likes it and wants it to succeed, which is why they were asking so many questions! Now, when I'm the one doing the stress-testing, I make sure to be clear that's what I'm doing. Being upfront with people about that makes the convo collaborative rather than combative.
I love how you took a situation that was difficult to you and turned it into a learning opportunity to reshape how you communicate to create more psychological safety.
So much of what people lack in these interactions is context. It doesn't take a ton of time to give them that perspective, but too often, we are so focused on our own message, we don't pause to notice what the other person is really asking for. Thank you for weighing in, Teagan!
Option 1 is very useful especially when some people very quickly look for negative signs instead of assessing the realities.
But at the same time, in high performance workplaces, people know exactly what they’re are doing when they antagonise coworkers, especially in group settings such as meetings.
But, I believe you are right that addressing the differences/conflict directly is almost always the best way to go.
Even if the coworker is being difficult intentionally, by having a neutral one to one meeting/talk it helps you to better relate with them and it shows them that you’re prepared to work with them (even if they wanted friction).
It’s best to exhaust the collaborative routes to make sure you’ve tried everything to work together in the first instance.
I agree, Daniel. Someone might be going out of their way to antagonize you, and I wouldn't make that assumption as a starting point. The great news about an escalation path is that you can always use the nuclear option and feed the issue up the flagpole, but it's generally not the best place to start. Appreciate you weighing in!
The stress-testing reframe is a good one. Can't tell you how many times I've wondered, "why are they being so critical of this pretty straightforward proposal," only to find out that the person actually likes it and wants it to succeed, which is why they were asking so many questions! Now, when I'm the one doing the stress-testing, I make sure to be clear that's what I'm doing. Being upfront with people about that makes the convo collaborative rather than combative.
I love how you took a situation that was difficult to you and turned it into a learning opportunity to reshape how you communicate to create more psychological safety.
So much of what people lack in these interactions is context. It doesn't take a ton of time to give them that perspective, but too often, we are so focused on our own message, we don't pause to notice what the other person is really asking for. Thank you for weighing in, Teagan!
Option 1 is very useful especially when some people very quickly look for negative signs instead of assessing the realities.
But at the same time, in high performance workplaces, people know exactly what they’re are doing when they antagonise coworkers, especially in group settings such as meetings.
But, I believe you are right that addressing the differences/conflict directly is almost always the best way to go.
Even if the coworker is being difficult intentionally, by having a neutral one to one meeting/talk it helps you to better relate with them and it shows them that you’re prepared to work with them (even if they wanted friction).
It’s best to exhaust the collaborative routes to make sure you’ve tried everything to work together in the first instance.
I agree, Daniel. Someone might be going out of their way to antagonize you, and I wouldn't make that assumption as a starting point. The great news about an escalation path is that you can always use the nuclear option and feed the issue up the flagpole, but it's generally not the best place to start. Appreciate you weighing in!