2 Comments
User's avatar
Teagan Kuruna's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
—daniel's avatar

Option 1 is very useful especially when some people very quickly look for negative signs instead of assessing the realities.

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 also it 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.

Expand full comment