Getting Along

So, I don’t do any primary research myself, but I’ve had the privilege, over the last ten-plus years, to interview academics who have been looking at what are effective strategies for dealing with difficult people: What are some of the patterns of behavior that are most frustrating? What’s the brain science behind why we react the way we do?

So, the book is really based on the research done by academics in a variety of fields: everything from management science to emotional intelligence to neuroscience. And I’ve really taken that primary research and translated it into practical advice. So that’s what the… When it says “research based,” that’s the research it’s based on.

Rachel Salaman: And, in the book, you talk about eight archetypes of difficult people. We’ll get into some of these a bit later but, first, how did you come up with those eight?

Amy Gallo: I landed on these eight as the ones that were either the most common – I was hearing a lot about them – or were trickiest and I hadn’t heard a lot of advice about how to deal with them. So, like, the tormentor, for example: someone you expect to be a mentor, but actually does the exact opposite and tends to undermine your career.

Fortunately, in my experience, this is one of the more rare of the eight archetypes. However, I haven’t seen a lot of advice out there about how to deal with it. And I was getting tons of questions from readers and from audience members when I do talks, about “How do you deal with someone who sort of fits this archetype?”

Rachel Salaman: Another thing that sets your book apart – I thought – from other books that try to help people to deal with difficult people is that there’s a strong focus on what you call “cleaning up your side of the street.” Could you talk about that?

Amy Gallo: Yes. This was a term I actually heard from a friend who had a son who was struggling with some mental health issues. And her therapist told her, “Okay, while he’s dealing with his stuff, you have to clean up your side of the street.” And what the therapist meant was, “You have to get yourself in order so that, when you’re interacting with your son, you’re not bringing your own baggage; you’re not bringing your own perspective or projecting onto your son.”

I’ve since learned, actually, it’s a term that’s used in AA – Alcoholics Anonymous – that, when you’re trying to repair a relationship with someone, you really have to focus on what you do: what your thoughts, reactions, behaviors are.

And, while I don’t love to tell someone’s who’s struggling in a difficult relationship, “Oh, it’s on you. You’ve got to do this: you have to be the adult in the room,” I do feel like it’s sort of the only locus of control that we have.

Of course, we can escalate; we can bring in a mediator; we can give direct feedback to our colleague. And all of that I talk about in the book. But really, what you can truly change is the way you think, react and behave with this other person, with the hope that you are modeling behavior you want to see and you’re nudging them into more productive ways of interacting with you.

But none of that can happen unless you’re clear on your role in the dynamic as well as how you’re reacting and behaving in the presence of the other person – how that might be contributing to the dynamic between you.

Rachel Salaman: So, we’ve mentioned a couple of the archetypes. The full eight are: the insecure boss, the pessimist, the victim, the passive-aggressive peer, the know-it-all, the tormentor, the biased co-worker, and the political operator. So, let’s talk about a few of those now, starting with the insecure boss. You say, in the book, that they “wreak a particular kind of havoc.” What do you mean by that?

Amy Gallo: Well, no one likes to work with a boss they find difficult in any way. But I do think that insecure bosses can be really, really tricky and the havoc that they wreak is often that they’re really playing out those insecurities on their team.

So, they might micromanage you because they don’t trust that you’re going to do exactly what you say you’ll do or that you’ll do a good enough job, or that your work will reflect well on them. They often hoard information or relationships, trying to block you from interacting with other people: especially people who might be above them or other departments.

And what’s challenging is that for most people – and most of the people I interviewed for this chapter admitted they knew that this was about the boss. This was about their own insecurity: their own imposter syndrome, if you want to use that phrase. But it was so difficult to be on the receiving end of that behavior.

Even if you knew it wasn’t about you, it was really hard to take it personally. And I think that struggle between knowing this is really your boss’s issue to deal with, but you are on the receiving end of all of this negative behavior, it’s hard to know “How do I react to that?” And it’s really hard to know “How do I help my boss feel less insecure?” and “Is that really my job?”

Rachel Salaman: So, what are some ways to deal with this situation?

Amy Gallo: Rachel, I have to admit, this is some of my least favorite advice to give because I think it does put a lot of onus on someone who doesn’t have as much power or authority – who is in an unhealthy relationship with their boss – to take action. And, yet, the research really shows that, by taking action, you can change that dynamic.

And, when I say “taking action” – and this is why I don’t love giving this advice – is that what the research shows is actually, flattery helps: genuine flattery. And it is probably the last thing you want to do if you have a boss who is making your life difficult, to figure out, “Oh, how can I make them feel good? How can I pump up their ego?” But it has been shown to work.

And so, if you can find something that you genuinely appreciate about them – and it has to be genuine – and express that to them: “I appreciate how careful you are about equity on our team,” or “I see how hard you’re working to impress your boss” – whatever it is – just acknowledging that you see something that they’re good at – or that they’re doing particularly well – can help calm their ego a little bit.

And can also make you seem like an ally. Which I think is another real tactic to think about, is that “How do you align yourself with your boss?” So rather than being perceived as a threat – which you may not have played a role in at all; they just might be very defensive and sensitive and see you as a threat. So, rather than being seen as threat, you want them to see you as someone who cares about their success.

Rachel Salaman: At what point does that actually become unhealthy for someone in that position?

Amy Gallo: Yeah. This is one thing I think to keep an eye on with any of the advice in the book or any tactics you try to employ to change the dynamic. Is that, first and foremost, you need to make sure that you’re taking care of yourself: that you are watching out for your mental and physical health. Because, it is possible – as you point out – to get deep into these relationships and get really focused on trying to improve them at the cost of your own mental health or your own wellbeing.

And so, I think you have to really watch out for “Do I feel like I am keeping my integrity?” “Do I feel like these steps I’m taking actually compromise my own reputation or my own wellbeing?” and really make sure you’re keeping an eye on that as you go.

Some people will start out saying, “Oh, yeah, no. These seem like the right things to do” – and especially with an insecure boss. If that person is not well respected in the organization and you’re doing all this work to align yourself with them or to flatter them, it might tarnish your reputation.

So, you need to be really careful that, as you’re doing things, you’re keeping an eye on both how you feel, your values – are you making sure you’re aligned with your own values? But, also, how are others perceiving you in your attempts to make this relationship better?

Rachel Salaman: Great advice. It’s all quite complicated, but that’s relationships for us, I suppose.

Amy Gallo: Yes. I have to admit, I do think that a lot of the advice I give is probably easier said than done. Because this is complicated; humans are messy; relationships are messy. And I think there’s a huge role that emotions play in all of this, right.

So, when your boss is micromanaging you or undermines you in front of others in a meeting, you’re not going to sit there rationally, thinking, “Well, what tactic would work?” You’re going to have an emotional response. And so, understanding that is helpful. But I think some of the advice is hard to access in those moments.

And that’s why I really encourage people, one, to experiment and make sure that they’re trying out different tactics: they’re prepping ahead of time. If you work with a boss who does speak over you in a meeting or cuts you off or undermines you, make sure you have a few phrases in your back pocket, so you’re ready to respond.

And make sure you’re keeping an eye on what feels right to you. Like, not all of these tactics a) will be effective, necessarily or b) will feel right in the moment. And you have to really find out what feels authentic to you, in order to be able to do some of these things and move beyond the “easier said than done.”

Rachel Salaman: If we can talk about the pessimist now… This is an archetype that most of us will be familiar with: someone who sees doom and gloom everywhere. I really loved your suggestion to wrap that into their professional role.

So, you cast them as a “Disagreer-in-Chief" – you say – someone who has to come up with contrarian views as part of their job. Have you seen that work in practice?

Amy Gallo: I have, actually. I worked with a team – a senior leadership team – who had one particular member, who, it was just his nature to point out the risks, to show what was going to go wrong. And, unfortunately, the team responded by polarizing. The more he was negative, the more overly positive they got.

And what they realized is that none of them then had a realistic view of what was going to happen and what was possible. And so, we worked to give this person a role. And, because they knew, they expected it. It didn't feel like a blind-siding, negative comment: it felt like, “Okay, no, this is what he has to do: he has to point out the risks. And now we can have a rational conversation about ‘How do we mitigate those?’ and ‘How realistic are those?’”

The other thing it did on the team is that, research shows that being a pessimist or being contrarian or cynical actually gives you a little bit of power in a group dynamic. And so, this particular team member was wielding a lot of power and was swaying decisions, based on his pessimistic outlook.

By giving him that official role, it helped right size his perspective, so that it wasn’t subconsciously swaying the team, but it was like, “Okay, here’s this moment in time where we need to consider that perspective.” And, again, they could then have a more thoughtful, deliberate conversation about “How realistic are those risks?” “What can we do?” “What steps can we do to make sure those don’t actually come true?”

Rachel Salaman: And you do mention in the book – don’t you? – that there is, often, a grain of truth in some of the pessimist’s negativity. So, it’s not best for anybody just to dismiss them.

Amy Gallo: Absolutely. I mean, if you think about how many big company scandals had people internal in those organizations saying, “I don’t think this is right,” or “I think we’re not looking at the risk.” And people just sort of quieted them or silenced them, right? You do want to hear those contrarian perspectives; you do want to hear someone who’s pointing out potential roadblocks or obstacles and what will happen.

We don’t want to let it dampen the mood of the team or the motivation of the team. We don’t want them to have more power than anyone else on the team. But, if we can sort of right size their role and hear their perspective, I think it benefits everyone.

Rachel Salaman: For all of the archetypes, you look at what might be behind the difficult behavior. And that helps us empathize with that person. For example, with the passive-aggressive peer, he or she may be driven by a fear of failing to live up to their own high standards or they may want to avoid conflict. What do we gain from empathizing with our annoying colleagues?

Amy Gallo: Yes. Again, this is one of those pieces of advice I want to be careful that this is not empathizing to the point that you lose yourself or you don’t have empathy for yourself. And it’s really… I don’t think about the empathizing as something you’re doing out of generosity to the annoying colleague.

I actually think it’s a strategic move because, if, think about it, if I think about my pessimistic colleague and I’m just sitting here, steaming: “Oh, gosh! They have nothing good to say,” “Why do they do this?” “This is just an inherent part of their personality,” “They’re just so awful,” my interactions with them are going to be tense.

I’m not going to show up as my best self if I’m sitting there, shooting darts at them. It’s just not going to be productive. However, if I think to myself, “You know what? There are rational reasons people do this.” And, passive-aggressive behavior, as you said, sometimes it’s a fear of conflict. And it’s not, while I don’t necessarily agree with the behavior, there’s a rational reason.

It softens my stance toward them and helps me show up more calm and present in the conversation and able to access some of those tactics that I talk about without getting overly emotionally triggered, where you can’t actually make a thoughtful, deliberate decision about what you’re going to do.

You’re listening to Expert Interview from Mind Tools.

Rachel Salaman: Now looking at some of this from the manager’s point of view, you have some specific advice for managers of passive-aggressive people. And you urge them to take immediate action because, you say, “This behavior corrodes trust and psychological safety.” It’s pretty serious. So, what can they do?

Amy Gallo: Yes. And I think about what I think of as the three pillars of psychological safety, which are “care” – we have one another’s back – “consistency” – we behave in a reliable and predictable manner. And then the last one is “candor”: we say what we mean and we mean what we say.

And, if you think about passive aggressive behavior, it really undermines candor, specifically, because people aren’t saying exactly what they think and feel: they, for some reason, don’t feel able to be direct and honest. And, they’re violating consistency because they might say one thing at a meeting and then do something different. So, it can be really corrosive to a team to have someone who’s exhibiting that behavior and getting away with it.

And so, I think, for managers, it’s really about making sure you’ve set norms on a team of “What do we expect?” When people violate those norms, you give them feedback directly and honestly about doing that. You can help people understand how their behavior a) is being seen by others – because they may not even be aware.

Very rarely, I think, people go home and say, “Oh, I was so passive-aggressive at work today.” They don’t have that self-awareness. They might think, “Well, I didn't feel comfortable being honest, so I was a little petty. I probably wasn’t very kind in that meeting.” But they don’t think of themselves as passive-aggressive.

So, helping someone understand how their behavior’s being interpreted by others and how that might be preventing them from reaching their goals, I think that’s one of the most important feedback tactics that a manager can use: is help someone understand, if you want to help someone do x… whether that’s help them get a promotion or “Make this project a success”… it can be really smart to show them that the behavior that is annoying their colleagues is getting in their way of achieving that goal.

And that will give them, hopefully, a little bit of motivation to try to change their behavior. Because, let’s be honest, behavior change is hard. Even if you are self-aware, you know what you’re doing, you understand the impact, you’re motivated to change, it’s still difficult to do.

So, as a manager, you’re looking for that motivation: How can you really prompt people to both, see their behavior, but then want to do something to change it.

Rachel Salaman: Now, your chapter on the biased co-worker is a careful exploration of this sensitive issue. And you discuss the risks and benefits of speaking out if you feel like someone’s being biased towards you or towards a colleague. Can you take us through some of the main points to weigh up in a situation like that?

Amy Gallo: Yes. One thing to keep in mind – overarching thing to keep in mind – about addressing biased comments and behavior at work is that all of the research shows that we think we will address it: we think we’ll speak up; we think we’ll call it out, especially when we witness it happening to someone else. But the reality is that very few of us in the moment feel equipped to do it.

And rarely do we actually call it out in that moment. Oftentimes, it takes time to reflect and come up with a strategy. So, I think that’s sort of an overarching thing to keep in mind is that it takes a lot for us to actually be prepared and have the wherewithal, in those moments, to speak up. We’re really prone to focus on the risks of action and we don’t often think about the risks of inaction.

So, the first thing I ask people to do is think about, “If you stayed silent, if you didn't speak up, what would happen?” “What could be some of the downsides?” And “Could you be condoning the behavior?” “Could you allow the person who is on the receiving end of the comment to feel like they don’t belong?” “Would it encourage a sense of exclusion, rather than inclusion on the team?”

And then, of course, you want to think about the risks of speaking up. And there will be risks. You might temporarily damage the relationship between you and the other person. Especially if that person’s in a senior position, you might risk some reputational damage for challenging them. And I want you to be realistic about what those risks are and then carefully evaluate, “Okay, what are the upsides? What are the downsides?”

Now, again, this is definitely much harder to do in the moment, which is why it’s, I think, very important to get in touch with, “What are my values around speaking up around bias?” “What are some phrases I can have in my back pocket so that I’m ready if a comment is made?”

The other piece of research I think is very relevant here is that we tend to afford people who are not the target of the bias more credence when they speak up, which means that, as a bystander, when you witness these behaviors, it’s much more important for you to speak up in those moments and to say something.

Rachel Salaman: Yes, and you mentioned there that it’s useful to have some phrases in your back pocket. And, throughout your book, you do offer some suggestions of useful phrases in dealing with all of the archetypes.

Amy Gallo: Yes. I’m glad you pointed it out. That’s one of my favorite things; I love sampling. When I read other articles in books and people give sample language, I know I’m never going to use that phrase verbatim, but it really helps me to think, “Oh, there is a way to say that” and “How can I adapt that to be more authentic to me?” So, it was something I really wanted to make sure I included in the book as well.

Rachel Salaman: Yes. I think it’s one of the most useful features of your book. Could you, perhaps, share some phrases to bear in mind if you think you’re seeing bias or if you’re on the receiving end of bias?

Amy Gallo: Yes. There’s an NYU professor named Dolly Chugh who I’ve just a ton of respect for and I feature her advice and research in that chapter. And she talks about asking… I think she calls it “the dumb question” or “the ignorant question,” which is just, sometimes you don’t know whether what you’re seeing or hearing is bias.

And so, you can just ask a question of “What did you mean by that?” or “Did I hear you correctly? I thought I heard you say x. Is that right?” – allowing that person to reflect for a moment on what they said or did. Also, it gives you a sense of what their intention was. Because, sometimes, you may be misinterpreting a comment.

So, rather than going right in with an accusation, you’re giving the conversation space to understand their true intention. Some of the other phrases… You can, also, just call it out and say, “That comment is inappropriate.” Or “If I heard you correctly, I want you to know that what you said is offensive to Muslims” or “…not respectful to Muslims,” for example.

I often think about using “it” phrases in those moments when you want to call it out. “It’s not okay to call a grown woman a ‘girl’.” Or “It’s not okay to imply that our colleague won’t be taken seriously because of their race.”

And the person may really say, “You’re wrong: that’s not what I meant,” “No one sees it that way,” “You’re being overly sensitive,” but you’ve at least taken the step of telling them that you notice and that you are not okay with that behavior. And, hopefully, even if not in that moment they’re grateful or they change their attitude, it may be that it contributes to a change in perspective later on.

Rachel Salaman: So, we’ve touched on a few of the archetypes. And, towards the end of your book, you share nine principles for getting along with anyone. Which do you think are the most useful of these?

Amy Gallo: Oh, you’re asking me to, like, choose my favorite child! I like them all. One that I use quite often – and I referenced it earlier but I’ll just share it again – which is to really think of all of this, any tactics you use or approach you take or conversation you have with the challenging colleague – is to think of it as an experiment.

I’m not going to tell you, if you do Step One, then Step Two, then Step Three, everything’s going to be just great between you. Instead, you have to think about “What tactics do I want to try?” “How will they land?” “How will they land with this specific person?” “Do they feel authentic to me?” And then try them and see what you learn.

Do you learn that, “Oh, wow! That didn't work at all. Let me try another one” or “Oh, wow! That worked really well one-on-one, but not so much in a meeting”? And really try to just continually refresh your approach, based on what you’re learning.

I think there’s two things: one that allows you to just try to nudge things in the right direction, but also, it makes it a little less daunting to be like, “How do I change the way I interact with this overly passive-aggressive person?”

Well, you don’t have to change it completely. Try out a few things: see what works. And then maintain your curiosity throughout. So that’s one of my favorite of those nine principles.

Rachel Salaman: That’s a great one. So, most of what we’ve been talking about applies to people who work face-to-face. But I was wondering how much of it is relevant for virtual teams and remote teams when there are so many more of them these days? Does the distance, maybe, diminish some of these annoying traits? Or are there just new and different annoyances that are specific to virtual working?

Amy Gallo: Yes. I think there’s both. I think, in some ways, virtual work eliminates some of the drama that you might experience with someone. You don’t have to see them all the time, especially someone you find annoying. You can just hang up on the Zoom call and move on with your day.

And yet, I do think a lot of the behaviors can be really intensified in a virtual environment. Someone who’s passive-aggressive and you don’t have a chance to really suss out what they actually think and feel and you’re only watching them roll their eyes on a Zoom call or be indirect in email or instant message. That’s going to be harder to deal with.

And, likewise, I think political operators – for example – or insecure managers, without those in-person interactions, some of those behaviors might be intensified. And then you’re dealing, not just with “Oh, how do I deal with this behavior?” but “How do I address it when I don’t see this person on a regular basis?” or “I have to set up a separate Zoom call to talk about the way we interact.”

And the hurdle for addressing those behaviors in a virtual environment feels a little bit bigger. You can’t just stop by their desk; you can’t just suss out how they’re feeling about a meeting afterwards. You really have to be much more intentional and deliberate about addressing those behaviors.

Sometimes, I think, you also, in a virtual environment, might let things go a little bit more. So, if your political operator colleague on a Zoom call keeps saying “Idid this,” “I did this,” when it was actually the whole team, you might let it go or you might set up a call afterwards to just say, “I noticed you kept saying ‘I’ when the whole team was involved in that project. Why did you do that?”

Or make a direct request: “Next time you present, I’d like to make sure I’m spotlighted too in the Zoom call and that we’re making sure everyone gets credit where credit is due.”

I think all of the tactics I share in the book are very relevant for the virtual and remote environment. You just have to be a little bit more thoughtful and intentional about how you use them.

Rachel Salaman: So, what are some final tips for people who may be struggling with a difficult co-worker or two?

Amy Gallo: One thing we haven’t talked about – and this is one of the principles in that Nine Principles chapter and I think it’s something that can be really useful as a mindset shift – which is there’s this concept in social psychology called “naïve realism.”

Which is that, when we’re looking at something – a situation at work, an interaction, an email – we think we’re seeing it incredibly clearly. And, if someone has a different interpretation, they must be misinformed or just simply wrong.

And I think this is really important to remember when you’re dealing with a difficult colleague, is you might be 110 per cent confident that you’re seeing the situation clearly, but there are many other ways to view the situation. There’s the way your colleague sees it; there’s the way people outside the dynamic see it, your boss sees it. And those will all be different perspectives and that’s okay.

You don’t need a shared worldview with your colleague in order to get along: you just need agreement about how you’ll interact, about how to move forward. And so, it’s a mindset shift that I think can be really helpful.

And that’s my tip: is to really ask yourself – when you are seeing a situation and trying to figure out “How do I deal with this?” “How do I shift this dynamic?” – just ask yourself occasionally, “What if I’m wrong?” “What if someone else sees this differently?” And you might not be wrong, but you won’t ever know for sure.

So simply just asking the question, I think, opens you up to different perspectives and makes you much more collaborative with this person in trying to remedy whatever the challenging part of the situation is.

Rachel Salaman: That sounds like excellent advice. Amy Gallo, thanks very much for joining us today.

Amy Gallo: Thank you, Rachel. These questions have been great. I’ve really enjoyed the conversation. So, thank you.

Rachel Salaman: The name of Amy’s book again is “Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People).” And you can find out more about her and her work at her website, amyegallo – all one word – amyegallo.com. I’ll be back in a few weeks with another Expert Interview. Until then, goodbye.