This is part of a series originally created on LinkedIn, where we attempt to understand others whom we might think of as “Difficult Colleagues” and dismiss or try to fix them, but who we might need to think differently about and the situations we are in.
Understanding we might be wrong is a possibility that we don’t usually think about. We are usually the heroes in every story we tell.
But let’s think differently about our teammates and ourselves so that we can see our own potential problems with them that might be right in front of our noses.
For the previous posts in the series, click here:
- Difficult Colleagues? Introduction to the Series
- Difficult Colleagues? Possibility 1 – Paradigm Shifters
- Difficult Colleagues? Possibility 2 – Gender Behavioral Differences
Difficult Colleagues?
This Possibility might not be familiar, but rest assured, we’ve all fallen prey to its concepts.
Possibility 3 – Fundamental Attribution Error
Over the years, psychologists have shown us a number of Fundamental Attribution Errors that we habitually cling to. These are errors we make because of the different ways we are prone to quickly analyze situations.
In this way, I think of Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking Fast and Slow. Our brain’s preferred default way of thinking is Fast – it consists of scanning our brains for times when similar things have happened and assigning blame spontaneously to someone or something to get rid of the thought altogether and to move on with our day. It is Fast, dismissive, biased, and usually in error because there are other factors at play. We are likely to use a Heuristic judgment to arrive at this dismissive thinking of our colleagues and the situations we’re in.
When we think more Slowly, we’re able to access the deeper reasoning areas of our brains. This is more labor-intensive thinking. It is deliberate, analytical, and effortful for us; therefore, it is much less of a default mechanism and usually reveals a more truthful view of the situation.
The basic Fundamental Attribution Error: We attribute others’ negative behaviors to their character, while we attribute our own negative behaviors to our environment or the situations we’re in.
A Case in Point: My husband Jim LOVES his garage – it’s the place he keeps his most prized possessions– his tools (and his car, of course!). His peace of mind was violated as a young adult when his home was broken into, and many of his prized possessions, at that time, were stolen. He wants to make sure that that never happens again, especially with his tools. Locking down the garage has become a comfort ritual for him.
But what happens if I come home late, park my car in the garage and forget to shut the garage door, leaving it wide open all night long? He’s angry, and I am blamed for being careless with his tools, cars or anything else he has stored there. I’m a bad person.
On the other hand, what happens if he comes home, parks his car in the garage and forgets to shut the garage door? If I call his attention to it the next day, he shrugs it off, saying, “Oh, I must have forgotten.” He is just tired and forgetful.
Now, let’s turn this thinking around toward our work colleagues
How this could play out with our Colleagues: Say a coworker cannot match your own pace of work. You feel they are lazy and disengaged. They get their work done, but they’re always dragging their feet on the team. It always puts the team’s projects at risk, especially when others need to bank their work off the “lazy colleague’s work. You feel they don’t care about the team OR the projects. You label them a Slacker (a “Difficult Colleague”), and dang it! you’re getting pretty fed up with their lack of responsibility: it’s a character flaw.
On my end: I’ve had a serious stretch of “non-pace” at work, and my coworkers wonder about my inability to keep our projects on track, especially if I start our projects and they must bank off my tasks. I might not even know I’m causing problems, but I can’t think straight at work because I have multiple home problems. I might be a “sandwiched” employee: caring for my elderly parents (one of whom is dying) and my kids (one of whom is getting bullied at school). If I notice I’m not myself at work, I explain away my actions because I’m distracted with too much on my mind: it’s situational.
How many times have we failed to ask our colleagues if we notice problems– are they OK? How can we help? How can we give them more breathing room? Are they not working in their area of strength? Could you, together, brainstorm better workflows? Ask. Care. Talk. Strategize. Be human and humane.
Before we jump to conclusions, we owe it to them and to ourselves to create at least three different scenarios for the situation.
By all means, think about the alleged character flaw as one of the scenarios, but think of other possibilities too.
Then, think deeper. Could the one that harms our view of our colleague be incorrect? Probably.
But you will never know until you ask. By asking, you show your care and concern for your coworker. Together, you can think deeply about the team, the projects, and their priorities. Maybe the team gives the person some slack for the next month or so until things settle down or until you can have another check-in. Find the solutions that lay between everyone.
But don’t dismiss a colleague when they may be hurting – you’re hurting them even more by doing this. Find the solutions that everyone thinks are fair, and then continue to build your relationships and complete your projects. That is what will hold the team together and bring it to new heights of maturity.