Forums

I'm looking for suggestions. I have a small staff of 10, all female. One of the staff is an incredibly high C in the DISC profile. In fact she is the only C of the 10. She is highly technically competant-one of the best at her position I've seen, yet, in the classic high C mode is introverted, stoic, very blunt in conversation issues, not good at building personal working relationships. Unfortunately this is getting incredibly in the way of her building necessary working relationships with the rest of the staff and our business is such that being in contact and maintaining these relationships is, while not imperative, certainly desired. The rest of the staff are becoming increasing tired of what they perceive as her standoffishness and aloofness. I've talked in one-on-ones with them about her personality and how best to work with a high C, but haven't gained much traction there. All in all it's, as Mark and Mike have said, turning into increasingly ineffective behavior. How do I attack this? I don't really think you can change a high C to become more warm in relationships, yet allowing this to become a source of conflict and the source of a lack of communication among the staff is also not acceptable. I'm a ways off from dismissal and replacement because as I said, this gal is very technically talented and I won't lie, difficult to replace. Is this a lose-lose proposition? What do you think.
Tim

mauzenne's picture

Tim,

As a long-time member here, I'll spare you the "Feedback, Feedback, Feedback" mantra (although it's definitely going through my head ;-) ).

Of course, as she is a high C, focus on how her current behavior
1. builds walls between her and her teammates, reducing her ability to gather additional information that ensures her work is [i]accurate and correct[/i]
2. causes others to see her behavior as [i]unfair [/i]or inconsistent with defined [i]rules [/i]of behavior
3. reduces others' perception of her work, leading them to trust the [i]accuracy [/i]and [i]thoroughness [/i]of her work
4. makes you wonder about giving her specific assignments, that although intellectually and analytically challenging to her, require that she work effectively with others

I'm sure you get the point ... the consequences of her actions must be meaningful to *her*. The fact that her relationships suffer in itself will not particularly concern her.

I'd love to hear the feedback you have been giving her ... in my experience, high C's are particularly good at rationalizing away vague or inaccurate feedback. If you describe her behavior as being aloof, you're likely to get pushback (because, of course, aloofness is a conclusion you've drawn from her actual behavior). Describing her "behavior" accurately (e.g., crossing ones arms, pushing back from the person, rolling eyes, and then sighing) is more likely to get through to her. In addition to describing actual [i]behavior[/i], the [i]detail [/i]in the description will lend some credibility to your statements.

regards,
Mike

Tim G's picture

Mike--Your advice makes great sense. You're absolutely correct. The idea that her relationships suffer doesn't concern her at all. The fact that she may come across as "incorrect" or "inaccurate" or "inconsistant" WOULD bother her a lot-I know this for certain. So I need to change my perspective and come at it from that direction.

mauzenne's picture

Tim,

Please let us know the results of your approach change! (We're always looking for management Petri dishes) ;-

Mike

cowie165's picture

[quote="mauzenne"] If you describe her behavior as being aloof, you're likely to get pushback (because, of course, aloofness is a conclusion you've drawn from her actual behavior). Describing her "behavior" accurately (e.g., crossing ones arms, pushing back from the person, rolling eyes, and then sighing) is more likely to get through to her. In addition to describing actual [i]behavior[/i], the [i]detail [/i]in the description will lend some credibility to your statements.
[/quote]

Mike this paragraph is so very helpful. This helps me with a female direct that is a high C yet rationalises exactly as you described. Great stuff, thank you.