|
Advertisement: | |||
Home | Register | Login | Classified Ads | Message Boards |
Work/Life Wisdom
New York Lawyer
Q: This habit is maddening. It gets in the way of effective communication in our meetings. Equally maddening is that often, having disagreed with an idea put forth by myself or someone else, he will later articulate the same idea in different words, this time framing it positively and adopting it as his own. He�s very glib and smooth so it�s hard to take him on without looking petty. What can I do?
We�ve probably all known at least one of these knee-jerk naysayers. As is often the case with difficult personalities, the first thing to do is locate the guy on a continuum of behavior. On the one hand, he could be totally innocent, with the best interests of the firm at heart and unaware that he has developed a habit of automatic disagreement. At the other hand, he could be a political conniver, deliberately parting company with everyone else in an effort to have his ideas (even if borrowed from others) triumph so that he gets the credit. Somewhere in between are people who consciously or subconsciously like to put others down, but who aren�t necessarily crusading for total dominion over their colleagues. From the sound of it, your colleague appears to be farther down the slimy end of the spectrum. Dealing with him will first require evaluating whether his contrarian attitude actually gets in the way of progress or is just irritating. If it�s the latter, just carry on with your viewpoint and try to ignore him. If he derails good ideas, frequently grabs credit not due him and prevents a complete dialogue about important firm initiatives and problems, you�ll need to take some kind of action. Above all else, I�d advise stiffening your own spine. If you have a valid view, rehearse ways to persevere in your line of argument without appearing defensive: �I understand your concerns. However, it�s important that we hire more people for the real estate department so that we don�t get caught flat-footed.� Answer generalized objections with specific, factual rejoinders to reveal the emptiness of his arguments. Don�t take him personally. This is his M.O. and if it rattles your self-confidence he�s won. Remind yourself when he starts his pooh-poohing routine that he knows no other way, keep your head cool and stick to the facts and realities of the actual issue, rather than being sidetracked by his political nonsense. There�s also a more direct approach, which can be tried if someone with enough power can talk with him. Ellen Ostrow, Ph.D., founder of LawyersLifeCoach.com and a psychologist who coaches lawyers, asks whether other people in the partnership group feel the same way about this person. If so, she advises, �The person with the best relationship with the partner, the person with most power, or the person with the best communication skills can meet with the partner. This person might point out that although the partner probably doesn't even realize it, he tends to be argumentative in the meeting and that this makes accomplishing the goals of the meeting more difficult. This person might thank the partner for helping the group consider alternatives and perhaps note that his adversarial abilities serve him well in court, but in the meeting it would be helpful if he were more aware of this and gave more careful thought to suggestions before he responded to them. If the partner accepts the feedback, the group is then in a position to gently remind him of the goals of the meeting -- that cooperation and dialogue will help more than argument in this setting -- if and when the behavior occurs again.� It won�t be easy, but at least we can all agree that it�s worth it to try to check this fellow�s perverse attitude.
Sincerely,
|
|
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
| |||
|