Coping with difficult participants in a training
1. Dealing with difficult participants
We all know those people (participants) who make life sometimes “unbearable”. It could be a
participant who speaks too much or too long, a participants who criticizes every step or a
participant who always seems to agree.
Irritation could be you reaction, or withdrawal, or a counterattack. Although you will continue to
find difficult persons from time to time, it is possible to learn to cope with such persons. More
specifically, to learn to cope with such a behavior, without falling back in own strong emotions
such as aggression or worries.
Although the material described hereunder can be used in all situations, we would like to focus
here on training situations, and more specifically situations in which you as a trainer/moderator
have the responsibility to lead a discussion to a success. The text discusses the topic from two
perspectives:
- an interactive perspective, describing effective interactions and behavioral styles in
relation to the difficult person.
- An attitudinal-emotional perspective, describing ways how to cope with possible own
strong emotions.
2. An interaction-model, the Rose of Leary
2.1.
The Rose of Leary
The Rose of Leary (1957,…) is a model often used in communication-training. It intends to make
people aware of (extreme) styles of communication and behavior of others, and ways of coping
with these styles.
The model describes two dimensions of interactions:
Dominance versus Submissive behavior (Upper – Under Position)
This dimension describes the extent of leading and active behavior versus adaptive, receptive
behavior. The extent of dominance is an important variable in human interactions. People who
behave too dominant create irritation, too submissive behavior could result in irritation or
aggression as well.
Cooperative versus Task Orientation (Together – Against)
This dimension is related to a more cooperative, human approach, versus a more business-like,
cool and factual approach. A too much of the cooperative approach might lead to fear of loosing
personal independence, a too much of business-like approach might lead to critical and cynical
discussions.
If we describe these two dimensions in a quadrant, we can deter four categories of (extreme)
behavior:
1
Upper/Active
DOMINANT CONTROL
PATRIARCH
ENTERTAINER
Against/Task
Together/Relation
NO SAYER, COMPLAIN, YES SAYER, OBEDIENT
Under/Passive
Participants in a training group might behave as follows:
Upper-Against behavior, the person dictates, governs, controls in a dominant and aggressive way,
not taking into account feelings of group-members.
The long-speaking participants, who reacts aggressively to alternative opinions, is an example.
The person (non-verbally) transmits the message: WE DO IT IN THIS WAY, NOT DIFFERENT,
DO NOT CONTRADICT MY OPINION.
Upper-Together behavior, the participant wishes the best for fellow participants but in his,
authoritarian way, under his conditions. Both the FAMILY-PATRIARCH and the
ENTERTAINER are metaphors for this behavior.
The person uses as a basic assumption: I WANT THE BEST FOR YOU, BUT IN RETURN,
YOU HAVE TO OBEY ME.
Under-Together behavior, a cooperative, kind team-player, willing to follow the rule.
The person intends to say: TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO, AND I WILL FOLLOW..
Under-Against behavior, analyzing, risk-avoiding, detail-oriented, using often the
sentence…yes…BUT. THIS IS A GOOD PLAN BUT…..(A POSSIBLE CATASTROPHE
FOLLOWS). This behavior is often considered as complaining behavior and causes irritation and
anger.
2.2.
The tendency to complementary behavior
The general human tendency is to react complementary to the above mentioned behaviors. So
dominant behavior triggers submissive behavior and the other way around. The tendency is as
well, to react with “cooperative behavior” to cooperative behavior and to react with “against”
behavior to against behavior. The complainer gets a sarcastic response and is in this way
confirmed in his “misery”.
2
And, a good intended, social, but authoritarian reaction is often followed by “yes, I agree
behavior”. In all these situations, we react more or less “spontaneous”, as we feel is the best.
However, in the same time, the obstacle is that we are not able to choose our response. We seem
to react as an automatic response, we are caught in interaction patterns and sooner or later, this
creates tension.
By becoming aware of this tension, we start to realize we are communicating in a pattern where
power plays a (too strong) role, or we experience regular sarcastical or totally agreeing behavior.
This is shown especially in non-verbal behavior, dominant behavior, for instance, is seen in strong
expressions and a high speed of talking, and is often triggering an analyzing or accepting way of
speaking and reacting.
Based on this model and these examples, we can conclude that “difficult” behavior is always part
of an interaction pattern. In interaction, “difficult” behavior often intensifies. And, different people
experience different behaviors as “difficult”.
The challenge, for trainers is, to prevent from developing these kind of interaction patterns, and to
behave constructive-opposite, see chapter 2.4.
Causes of, reasons for “difficult” behavior
2.3.
People in general, and course participants in specific, do not behave difficult intentionally.
Participants are not behaving aggressively, obedient or silent by purpose. Moreover, they only
behave in extreme ways, related to unfavorable circumstantial factors. Participants often behave
on the basis of (unconscious) assumptions and circumstances such as:
-
-
What is my status: for instance, the status as experienced by a Court of Appeal judge
versus a young starting first level court judge.
How open, and controlling should I behave. Group Stage: depending on the level of groupdevelopment (see documents, S. Roenhorst, chapter 5 & 6), participants try to find out to
which extent they should control the discussions, and how open and free they can behave.
Personal temperament, the tendency to behave in a specific manner, based on personal
history and character.
Interactive-component, see above.
Focusing on the rose of Leary again, we can assume the following thinking patterns in the four
behaviors:
The aggressor, intends to control the situation, and his concern is that he can not influence the
situation. Power is his focus and this can be shown in impressive, forcing behavior. The basic
thought is: SOME ONE NEEDS TO CONTROL (AND I AM THE BEST IN THIS).
The Family patriarch, is concerned about not receiving enough attention. His focus is on being
in the limelight, attention means that he is doing and feeling well.
The complainer, is concerned to make mistakes. PROBLEMS MUST BE SOLVED
PERFECTLY, OTHERWISE IT IS BETTER TO AVOID MAKING DECISIONS.
The follower, is concerned about acceptance by others/group members, and will do everything to
agree with members/trainers, in order not to be isolated.
By developing understanding, by empathizing with the participant, the trainer can better
understand, and at the same time, take distance of the extreme behavior of the participant.
3
2.4.
The preferred reactions, positive counter-balancing
Positive, counter balancing interventions are:
In relation to the dictator :
Dominant, but cooperative behavior. Listen active, show understanding, be clear and to the
point, emphasize the cooperation. In case of crying, take distance, and add that you want to
communicate but not in this way.
Non-verbally: eye-contact, strong and clear voice, show force in a positive and structuring way
of working. Prevent from being passive or slow.
In relation to the entertainer/patriarch
Dominant, assertive. Active behavior, enthusiast, give other possibility to speak.
Non-verbally: clear and friendly, show equality. Be clear and friendly when the other tries to
“arrange” things. Prevent from being neutral, unmotivated or to agreeing.
In relation to the Analyser/Complainer
Neutral, structured style. Communicate step by step, logical and relate new idea’s to existing
schema’s.
Non-verbally: accept the worries, build up trust by careful listening. Prevent from sarcastical or
active dominant behavior.
In relation to the Follower/Yes sayer
Accepting style: Be informal, emphasize the importance of his opinion and integrity, and be clear
in your goals.
Non-verbal: listening, friendly, pauses in speaking. Prevent from dominant behavior or steering
this participant.
It is clear that especially the (non-verbal) tempo, in which you positively-counter-balance the
other is essential. Specialists speak here about MATCHING, MATCHING is the skill in which
you behave verbally and non-verbally on the same “wave-length” as your partner, which gives the
other the feeling that he is understood.
Matching is an essential part of empathy. You can check if your match was successful in your
partner, when he behaves in a less extreme way than before:
-
A aggressive participant starts to behave actively-controlling
A Patriarch behaves strong and social with respect for others
A Complainer behaves constructive and analytical
A Yes sayer behaves open, sociable and expresses his opinion
4
2.5.The mental preparation of the trainer
To summaries, the trainer intends to choose new behavior, hence, positive-counter balancing in
stead of complementary behavior. To be able to choose, to decide how to behave, the following
preparation is needed:
-
awareness of the own, preferred (complementary) behavior (2.2.)
awareness of the causes, especially concerns of the extreme behavior of others (2.3.)
intention: keep and develop a constructive relation with your participants
reflection on the preferred counter-balancing style (2.4.)
action/intervention, Active listening, Matching and Assertive Behavior.
During the training in this method, the trainer will spend considerable time to exercise each of
these steps. In reality, in a training-group, the professional trainer goes through these stages in
several seconds and “chooses” constantly his style and behavior, in relation to the inter-action
with participants.
It is important to conclude that the Rose of Leary is one of the methods to be used in the
discussions on the style and roles of a trainer/facilitator. Other decisions to be made, by a
trainer/facilitator are described in the previous chapters. This model focuses mainly on dealing
with difficult participant-behaviors during training situations.
5
3. The attitude and emotions of the trainer, the cognitive-behavioral
model and RET
Oricine poate deveni furios – e simplu. Dar sa te infurii pe cine trebuie, cit trebuie, pentru ceea ce
trebuie si cum trebuie – nu este deloc usor.
ARISTOTEL, Ethica nicomahica
3.1.
Introduction
The wisdom of Aristotle, and the philosophies of the Stoicines form the basis of the Cognitive
Behavioural Psychology, worked out by Mr. Albert Ellis. He concretised this approach in the
Rational Emotive Therapy (RET), and later into methods for training, counselling and other
methods for professionals.
The essence of the method is that, not so much the practical situations disturb people emotionally,
but the thoughts and beliefs about this situation. Consequently, people are able to influence their
strong emotions, by thinking in a rational way.
Thinking in a rational way makes emotions more moderate, adapted to the situation, and giving
people the opportunity to act accordingly.
Some situations that a trainer might face are mentioned here, expressed as a (irrational) thought:
-
“I sometimes became furious, when a person appeared too late in the training, they must
respect my program, my anger raises while waiting for him”,
“I feel that I will get blocked during my presentation due to fear that I will not be perfect, for
this reason, I avoid speaking for a group”,
“I can not interrupt a talkative participant, he will feel ashamed and that is terrible”
These and other similar examples are human, and each trainer will face some of them. However,
the RET predicts, that trainers “using” these beliefs are prone to strong and dysfunctional
emotions such as furiousity, fear/panic, depression, jealousy, etc. Emotions are labelled as
dysfunctional when they are very strong and prevent people from reaching their goals.
6
3.2.
MUSTurbation
People, trainers, experience strong emotions, when they possess strong and dogmatic assumptions
and beliefs. Albert Ellis considers the following MUSTS as crucial:
1. Demandingness, high expectations to the self, perfectionism, and self-judgment. These
beliefs result in strong feelings of fear, depression, shame and guilt.
I MUST BE PERFECT (AND IF NOT, THAN……)
2. High expectations to others, blaming others. These beliefs lead to feelings of anger,
aggression, or being hurt
OTHERS MUST BEHAVE AS I WANT THEM TO BEHAVE (AND IF NOT, THAN…)
3. High expectations to the life in general, expectations of a “pink life”, or expectations not
being able to cope with difficulties. These beliefs lead to extreme fears, avoiding difficult
situations, etc.
LIFE MUST BE EASY-GOING, AND IF NOT, THAN I CAN NOT STAND IT
Special characteristics of these kinds of thoughts such as the demandingness, the negative (self)
judgment and the absolute character of these beliefs make them strong provokers of emotions.
In relation to these MUSTs, several constructive and destructive emotions can be described:
Destructive emotions
Constructive emotions
-
Irritation/anger
Sadness
Regret
Nervous
Furiousity
Depression
Guilt/shame
Anxiety/strong fear
People, trainers, who have strong MUST beliefs about their training, their participants, their own
performance, etc., will be more prone to strong emotions, and can be less effective as a trainer.
Trainers, that have more flexible, balanced, tolerating and reality-based beliefs, will experience
constructive emotions. These emotions will help them in intervening more adequately. For
instance, irritation can help to confront participants in a straight and timely way. Regret can lead
to constructive self-reflection, and a choice of a new follow-up approach.
It should be concluded again, that it is not so much the situation (difficult participant, failure of a
method, hesitance in a presentation, etc.) that trigger destructive feelings, but much more the
irrational thoughts and beliefs about this situation.
The method described in the next paragraph, is aimed at challenging these irrational idea’s, to be
able to be less prone to strong emotions and be able to handle more effectively.
7
3.3.
The ABC scheme and 8 steps method
The RET uses a concrete scheme, that proves to be helpful in analyzing irrational thoughts and
finding new ways of thinking. The following concepts are used:
-
A: activating event, situation
B: belief,
C: consequences, emotional and behavioral consequences
B: Beliefs
A: Activating Event
C: Behavioral and emotional consequences
A possible example of a Trainer follows:
1. Desribe the A, activating event
A trainer has a participant who talks a lot, overrules the trainer and asks difficult questions
2. Describe the C, emotional and behavioral consequences
The trainer realizes he feels strong anger, and other moments, he feels scared, and does not really
react. He withdraws, and does not really discuss with the participant.
3. Describe the B, beliefs
The trainer reflects on his thoughts, and realizes the A provoke some of the following irrational
thoughts:
- the participant wants to show he is better than me, control me, I can not accept this, he
MUST behave more respectful, it makes me furious.
- He asks difficult questions, it is terrible when I do not know all answers, in that case
I’m a bad trainer, this makes me feel anxious.
4. Formulate the preferred feeling, preferred C, emotional and behavioral consequences
The trainer prefers to stay more calm, to be able to react firm and self-confident.
5. Debate the irrational beliefs
The trainer starts to critically analyze his irrational beliefs:
-
The participant wants to show he is better than me, control me, I can not accept this,he
MUST behave more respectful, it makes me furious. Does he really want to discredit me?
Can I live with participants who think they are better than me? Is it realistical to expect all
participants behave respectful?
-
He asks difficult questions, it is terrible when I do not know all answers, in that case
I’m a bad trainer, this makes me feel anxious. Do I need to be perfect? Does a trainer need
to know all answers? If I do not know the answer, what is the worst thing that could
happen? Is it helpful to feel such a big anxiety?
8
6. Replace the irrational thoughts by more rational thoughts
-
-
The trainer realizes that he can wish participants behave according to his standards but
that not all participants will always do so. Moreover, he realizes that interrupting is not
meant at discrediting his expertise.
The trainer realizes that it is not pleasant to be not able to answer, but that this is
human. And when not knowing the answer, staying calm, thinking, etc. is preferable to
developing strong anxiety.
7. Test the result in imagination
The trainer imagines himself again in the group, with the difficult participant,
overruling and asking questions. He keeps the new rational idea’s in mind, when
imagining the situation. Although he feels his fear and anger coming up, he is better able to
control it, and not be overwhelmed by it.
8. Test in practice
The trainer meets with the training group in reality. He keeps the rational idea’s in mind
and is able to start effective communication with the participant. When he does not know
the answer, he admits and informs that he will search for it.
3.4.
Using the ABC Model and the 8 steps
The above mentioned example is used to illustrate how Trainers can work out their own case. In
Training of trainers, the ABC Model and the 8 steps method are used in paired interviews. So one
person “challenges” the person who brings in his cases. Together, the persons go through the 8
steps.
The ultimate objective is this exercise if, of course, to support the trainer in developing a more
effective style in dealing with difficult training situations.
9