I'll switch my camera off and if you're ready to go. We're all good. Yeah.
OK, I, I'm Chris. I'm one of the directors of the veterinary management group. I've also been a senior manager in the veterinary sector for nearly 15 years now, and I've worked for a few companies like Vets Now, the VET, Southern County Vet Specialists, vet partners, vests.
And I've also designed and delivered soft skills training on a variety of topics throughout my career, including things such as change management, strategy, employee engagement, and leadership development workshops. And today, in 45 minutes or less, I'm going to resolve all of the challenges you have at work in dealing with difficult people. Well, maybe not, but, hopefully there'll be a few tips and tricks in here you can take away.
So, here's what we're going to run through. Now, to be honest, I've probably tried a bit too hard with this content slide and certainly spent a disproportionate amount of time on it, but essentially what we're doing is talking about why we find some people to be difficult and occasionally extremely challenging, and the sorts of things we can do to deal with them, remembering, of course, as it says here, that euthanasia is not a recognised option for a pain in the backside. The focus of this talk is colleagues, by the way, but obviously much of it can be applied to clients as well.
So before we get going, let's remind ourselves of what it is to be human, and I love this quote from Dale Carnegie. When dealing with people, we're not dealing with creatures of logic, we're dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity. So as human beings, we don't see the world as it really is, we don't see situations as they really are.
Our brain is deceiving us as it attempts to handle information and Wikipedia lists about 200 cognitive biases which have been confirmed by reputable research. So our view of the world is uniquely individual and often we think we see a whole picture, but actually we are only seeing a a perspective, and as Sain Jael put it, we live in a world of self-generating beliefs which remain largely untested. So our mindsets develop over a long time and they get modified by a situation, but also, how, how we interpret the situation can then influence as influence us as our mindsets grow and develop, so we end up only selecting data that suits our beliefs and so on.
And our mindsets can help or they can hinder. And what we need to do to try and overcome this in any kind of situation is try critical thinking, and that means seeking and wel welcoming different views, being open to being wrong about something, delaying judgments, questioning our assumptions, and considering issues in the context of a of a bigger picture. So we can improve communication and resolve issues using some of these sort of techniques.
So firstly, reflection, which is about becoming more aware of your own thinking and and reasoning processes. Secondly, advocacy, which is making your thinking and reasoning more visible to others, so basically inviting them to, to test your assumptions and conclusions, and then using what we call respectful inquiry to help others make their thoughts process visible and clarify their meanings and intentions. And then by balancing this idea of advocacy and inquiry between two people, we can explore impasses and seek alternative solutions.
OK, so people are different, with demographically different, which can release prejudices. We have different backgrounds, knowledge, education, and experience with different personalities, attitudes and beliefs, which are kind of deeper level differences and most likely to cause conflict. There are a variety of personality profile products on the market, the best of which are based on Jungian psychology principles.
So for example, DC, Myers Briggs, Talent Dynamics, and this one, which is insights profiling. This has 4 different sort of personality types, although to be honest, we all have bits of our personalities in in each of these areas, but we are more likely to be dominant in one or two of them. So for example, I'm a bit of a yellow-green combination, which means on a.
I'm dynamic and friendly and supportive and creative kind of person, but on a bad day I can be a bit frantic and all over the place or just kind of plod along and not actually get anything useful done. So for example, spending too long on the content slide presentation. Another thing, of course, is to recognise that we need all four colours in our team if we are to be effective.
The great team recognises the strengths that that brings and the compromises each person needs to make to accommodate each other, playing to each other's strengths and mitigating against each other's weaknesses. A poor team or a poor team member focuses on the weaknesses of others or simply just focuses on themselves. I'd recommend getting a practitioner in one of these sorts of areas, this or or insights or so on, and getting a practitioner in to profile your team and run some workshops on understanding and working with each other.
It is totally game changing. People go, ah, so that's why I don't like you. Now you find out what you, what you need to do to get along better or a recommendation there.
What you can tell from this model, apart from the fact my PowerPoint design skills are so optimal, is that generally people have all possible good intentions when they respond to situations based on their assertiveness level, i.e. How aggressive or passive they're feeling, and their focus of attention, people in relationships, or on the task in hand.
To get something done, to get something right, to get along with people, or to get appreciation, those are the four, intentions. Now people have naturally different levels of and different focuses. Sometimes these intentions are exactly what the situation calls for, sometimes they're not, and stress also impacts on them.
And when intents are thwarted, that person may become a difficult person. In the normal zone, people are their natural selves. Some people are assertive and others relatively easygoing, but as they move towards the aggressive zone, reactions can range from bloody minded determination to ruthlessness, nastiness, and belligerence, or if they move towards the passive zone, they may become submissive, yielding or withdrawn.
So for example, imagine an emergency clinic vet to vet handover. That one is at the end of an incredibly busy. Shift and they've done the best they can in the circumstances that their boss comes in to start a shift.
There are people in the waiting room yet to be seen and the place looks like chaos, and they start to fall out during the handover. So why is that? Well, that one's intention is to get it done.
So it probably starts rushing through the handover and sorting things out as they do it. Vet two's intention is get appreciated, so they probably see this as insulting or unappreciative. Other intentions beyond the normal zone are shown here as well to get it right and get along.
But, but a key thing to emphasise at this point is that that people aren't their behaviour. They do have a range of possible behaviours and they can change, and it's important to label the behaviour, not the person. However, people tend to demonstrate typical patterns of behaviour.
So an understanding of personality profiling will help you interact with them more effectively. You'll definitely find it easier dealing with some types of people and others, and knowing your own profile is critical, but it doesn't stop there. So you can't just go, oh, that's me, I'm I really red, get over it, understand yourself is just a starting point of development, not an excuse to behave badly, and everyone in the team has a responsibility to get that and not expect everyone to just work around them.
It doesn't matter who they are, we're nothing without the team around us. So, now we're going to go over a few basic principles for handling difficult people and difficult situations. So the first rule is there's no such thing as a difficult person apparently, but they may be difficult to you.
Everybody can be difficult at times, everybody reacts differently to these difficult behaviours they see, and you need to recognise the part you play in this as well. You have at least 4 choices in any given situation when when confronting a difficult behaviour. You can stay and do nothing, which is not sustainable in the long term.
You can walk away, which is sometimes best if if it's an irresolvable and deteriorating situation. But first, consider the third option, which is change your attitude, learn to see the person, listen to them, feel about them differently, then change your behaviour, so that they need to change the way in which they deal with you. You've always got a choice, but the best one is to change your attitude and then your behaviour.
No handling a difficult person, first of all, ask yourself, is it them or is it you? Are either of you dealing with a lot of stress? Have you actually had a proper adult to adult conversation with this person, because they may not know that their behaviour is causing problems, so you could just clear this up as a simple misunderstanding.
What impact is their behaviour having on your practise, on, on your patients, on your clients, on the team, on the business as a whole, and on you personally? So the golden rules of difficult conversations with difficult people according to Brinkman and Kirchner's 2007 book dealing with difficult people, are these ones here, and we're gonna go through these in a little bit more detail now. So first up, stabilise yourself.
You deal with a difficult person, stabilise yourself. Don't take it personally, really difficult people are most likely to be selfish and inwardly focused, so it's probably not about you. Set yourself and consider what is the purpose of this encounter I'm gonna have, what do I want to get out of it, and what behaviour do I need to change to get them.
You should find people that you find difficult to be actually quite predictable when you think about it. Avoid having row, so don't get personal. The first few words you use are absolutely critical in setting the tone and just repeat the key things that you want to get across and watch your body language.
So once you set yourself, you can then go about trying to understand their intents, their needs and their values, which again relates back to these two models that I showed you earlier. So what do you know about this person, their needs and their values. Why do you think they are against the thing that you need from them?
What is their personality type? What, what is their intent? And if their top priority appears to be get it done, then what you need to do at that point is keep your communication with them formal, clear, concise, and to the point.
We'll come back to it at another point, once they're not having to get something done. If their top priority appears to be to get it right, then pay attention to the details in your communications, be well prepared, factual, logical, formal, correct, allow time for reflection and response for them. If their top priority is get along, use considerate communications to show your interest in them, and kind of make it relaxed, quiet, private, give them time to consider things, and also because they care about people and relationships, emphasise the impact that their behaviour might be having on other members of the team or you personally.
And if their top priority appears to be to get appreciated, then recognise their contribution and appreciate them, be informal, good humoured, allow time, frame things within the big picture and tell stories. Thirdly, gain rapport. So reduce differences, OK, no one cooperates with anyone who appears to be against them.
Conflict occurs where the emphasis is on the differences rather than the similarities. So find common ground before you then try to redirect the interaction towards a new outcome. There's a quote here from a 17th century philosopher called Blaise Pascal.
Which I really like, when he says when we wish to correct with advantage and to show another he airs, we must first notice from what side he views the matter. From that side it is usually true and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he is not mistaken and only he failed to see all sides.
Listening is really important. Listen to understand people. So listen actively and show that you're listening, using techniques like backtracking, so you repeat back some of what they aim to show that you're listening and that what they're saying is important to you.
Clarify, so use open-ended questions to help understand their behaviour and intent more deeply. Summarise at the end to ensure that you're both now on the same page, that everyone's been everything's been covered and show you understand them and confirm that they're satisfied the problem is fully voiced and they feel understood. Then you can speak to be understood.
Monitor the tone of your voice, don't be angry or critical. Tell your truth constructively and explain why you're telling them. Be honest in a way that builds someone up rather than tears them down.
Be specific about the problem behaviour and its impact suggest alternative. Stay flexible and try to overcome any defensiveness. If they become defensive, just be prepared to just stop what you're saying and just focus more on understanding their reaction.
And try to fully understand any objections by using those techniques of backtracking, clarifying, summarising and confirming. Well, now we're gonna look at how we might deal with some of the kind of typically recognised types of, of difficult people. So here are some from Brinkman and Kircher's 2007 book.
They are, you know, labelling the person a little bit here, but I suppose if we treat them as labels for patterns of behaviour rather than labelling people, that's OK. And at least then once we, we do label in this way, we can provide some possible strategies for handling these behaviours. I imagine you'll recognise some of these, so we have the Sherman tank, a sort of abuse abusive, abrupt, intimidating, overwhelming kind of person from bars with criticisms and arguments and needs to prove himself right all the time.
The sniper that that appeared to be friendly, but they take pot shots behind you, the grenade prone to tantrums, especially when they feel, feel threatened in some way, they know all, as well as they think they know all. The complainer, the person just moans like a hell about everything and never seems to take any action to change anything at all. The negativist or no person that are basically just very cynical and sceptical and resistant to change, and more likely than a moaner to try and block and undermine you, a complainer just tends to, to moan away.
Kind of unresponsive, silent type people that basically respond to any disagreeable situation by shutting down. Also kind of ones you maybe wouldn't even think about, such as the yes person, it's kind of super agreeable person, it's always reasonable, always says yes to things that ends up then taking on too much stuff and then doesn't deliver. And then of course there's the kind of indecisive person, you just want to get a decision out of them, but they just procrastinate and procrastinate.
So those are some common examples of difficult behaviours or difficult people. So how do we deal with that? So for the Sherman tank, and again, just got to remind myself at the beginning of each of these, let's label the behaviour of the person.
So firstly, focus on feelings first, then causes. So anger blocks the ability to listen and reason and understand. So your goal has to be here to command respect, signal that you're strong and capable but not at home, you're not going in at the, held for leather.
Hold your ground, give them a little time to run down, don't argue or try to cut them down, and once the attack is over, tell them what you're gonna do about it and do it. If you need to interrupt the attack, just get in any way you can, you know, get them to sit down, stand up, call their name, whatever it takes, just get in if you need to interrupt, but otherwise just let them get it out, then take it from there. Maintain eye contact and be assertive when you're, you're stating your opinions.
Aggressive people or people that are being aggressive tend to like assertive people as long as it's not perceived as an attack, and kind of keep your volume at about 75% of theirs and preface anything you're, you're saying with ownership, so you know, from my point of view, X Y Z and keep it short and sweet because they'll have a short attention span. And be ready to be friendly and provide peace with honour as soon as you're able to do that. And then leave the door open if you need to walk away.
So if you just they just can't stop, then say, OK, look, we'll discuss it later and then that time to calm down and then come back to it later. The sniper, again labelled the behaviour, not the person, bring them out of hiding, that's what you need to do. Their power comes from covert, not overt activity, so expose them.
Don't let social convention stop you and don't overreact or take it personally. So if somebody's sniping away in the background when you're, you're trying to, to move people forward, stop what you're saying, look them in the eye and calmly backtrack their remark and ask questions of them. When you say that, what are you really trying to say?
Well, what, what's that got to do with, with what we're talking about here? OK. Don't focus on their point of view and be sure to involve others as well because they will not share that that view.
Finish this interaction either privately or publicly by suggesting a better way of behaving for the future which is being a bit more open, friendly and civil communications. And prevent sniping by setting up regular problem solving meetings and being aware of tackling it where someone is holding a grudge. And distinguish though between friendly kind of attention seeking sniping and malicious sniping.
If it's friendly just laugh it off or if you really don't like it, just let them know you don't like it, they're friendly, they'll stop. Treatment for the grenade again labelled the behaviour of the person. So your aim here is to take control of the situation when they start to lose it.
To get their attention, you may need to be louder than them, but don't let it seem aggressive. Call their name maybe, but in a tone of voice, it doesn't sound angry. You can't put out fire with gasoline.
Aim for the heart, show genuine concern and listen closely. Reduce intensity as they respond, start to reduce your voice volume and intensity to bring them down to a normal level of communication. Take time out, there's no point in discussing when adrenaline is still pumping, so let things cool the rest of the way down before getting back together to work things out.
And avoid setting them off. Generally, prevention is better than cure. Work out what is pulling their pin as it were, and avoid it getting pulled.
Treatment for the know all, again, labelled behaving one person. Your goal here is to open their minds to new information and ideas. So be prepared and know your stuff.
Make sure you've done a thorough job of preparing yourself and review all pertinent materials for accuracy. Backtrack with respect and sincerity. Make sure they feel you've thoroughly understood the brilliance of their point of view.
Blend, show how your idea takes their criteria and values into account. Present your views indirectly when redirecting you softening words maybe perhaps bear with me to avoid sounding like you're challenging them. Try questions rather than statements when disagreeing, use we rather than I and tell it like it is using evidence and non-threatening language.
Good thing to use K knows for is is the mentors, you know, they have an expertise in an area, and so you might as well put it to use. However, if they're they're a think they know it all, you still need to, allow them to save face, don't embarrass them, and if possible, kind of discuss it alone, refocus them, start noticing things that they're actually doing right and and praise them for that. Treatment for the complainer, which is obviously the behaviour and not the person, listen attentively to their complaints even if you don't want to, let them know if you agree, otherwise stay neutral and don't try to solve their problems.
Take command of the situation. Ask why, seek clarification on the specifics, sending them off to gather more information if necessary. But be serious and supportive about it, just keep bobbing them off.
Go get more info, go get more info. When you disagree, be diplomatic and concentrate on objective evidence that proves your point. And shift the focus to solutions and give them responsibility.
So ask them what they want from this, ask them to come up with some possible solutions either there or then or within a time frame and draw the line. So if these previous steps haven't produced a real change and they start again, they just need to shut down, make it clear that talking about problems without solution isn't a good use of your time or anyone else's. Treatment for the negativist, again, we know that's the behaviour of person.
It's a similar approach to dealing with the complainer. Your goal is to move them from finding towards problem solving. Change will be slow so be patient.
The first step is to allow them to be as negative as they want. And, and sometimes you can use negativist people as a resource. They can be valuable, apparently it can be be character building by spending time being positive with them, a bit like weightlifting, and, although for some people I think it might be more of a trial than, character building, but also they can be quite a good early warning system because there's often grains of truth and the negativity that others may have overlooked.
So, so do appreciate them, just because they go to extremes doesn't mean they're wrong and thank them for pointing out the challenges so, so we can all work together on solutions. And turn the table sometimes on people, suggest the negatives before they do, because they may then actually respond positively either because they're convinced, you're, you're dealing with prob problem realistically or their negativity means they want to prove you wrong. And be aware that yourself or others in the group could be dragged down by them and be prepared if necessary to take action without them on board and let them know that, but to leave the door open for them.
And beware of eliciting negativist responses from highly analytical people, the cool blues by asking them to act before they feel real. And treatment for the unresponsive or unresponsive behaviours, rather than trying to interpret what the silence means to try to get them to open up your goal is to get them to talk, plan enough time so you can maintain composure, get agreement on or state clearly on how much time is set aside for your conversation. Ask open-ended questions, ones that you're expecting answers to, ones that can't just be answered with would be yes, no, or a grunt, but open questions look and sound like you're about to get an answer.
Wait calmly for response. Don't be quick to silence. If you get no response, comment on what's happening, then ask an open-ended question or use humour or hazard guesses.
It's still no response, and wait as long as you can and then try again. If necessary, take them out of the moment and be clear about the damage their continued silence could do to the project that you're working on in the relationship or practise. When they open up, what's your impulse to gush, allow them to go off in a tangentness as it may bring some insight and state your own need to return to the original topic if not doing so.
If they stay closed, terminate meeting, set up another. And treatment for the yes person that behaviour at that point. OK, these people have a very strong people focus and a weak task focus, so they overcommit and then they feel really bad when they don't deliver but don't really feel responsible.
There's always some reason or other beyond their control. Your goal is to get commitments you can count on. So make it safe to be honest and talk honestly, so you can honestly examine whether future promises will be kept and can explore reasons or excuses in a psychologically safe way.
Help them learn to plan to teach them some simple task management skills. It's a learning opportunity. Ask them what could have been done differently, etc.
Ensure commitment to each project that they understand what's involved fully, set timescales for actions, and agree consequences for failure to deliver. And strengthen that relationship, let them know that you value them as people by telling them directly, asking or remarking about family or things, etc. And praise them when they complete a task and .
And and use broken promises as, as opportunities to learn. Ask them to talk about any aspect of your product or your service of yourself that isn't as good as the best. Listen to their humour, there may be hidden messages, and beware of wishful thinking.
Do remember they, they, they mean well. And finding treatment for the indecisive, again, label of behaviour of the person. So your goal with these people is to give them a strategy for making decisions and motivation to use it basically to help them to learn to think decisively.
So establish a comfort zone, make it easy for them to tell you about conflicts or reservations that are making the decision difficult to make, reassure them, maintain open communications and good relations, be patient. Surface conflicts and clarify options, patiently explore decision options and obstacles from their point of view and listen for kind of those indirect words, hesitations and omissions that may provide some clues to the problem areas where they start saying things like probably and I think so and so on and, and explore these whilst reassuring them, you know, about a good relationship that you have. Use a concrete decision making process.
When issues have been surfaced, help them to solve their problems, teach them a system that works on doing this. So help them examine the facts and use facts to place alternative solutions in a kind of priority order, and that also makes it easier for them if, if they've got to come up with decisions that going to impact on other people, they've at least got a reasoning behind it as well. And just reassure them there's no perfect decisions and the one that they've made is a good one.
Support them but ensure they follow through, so stay in touch with them until the implementation is complete. And strengthen that relationship, invest in them to become good decision makers. Well, we now turn our attention to how you might handle it, supposing you have two colleagues who find each other difficult and they've got to the point where they can no longer constructively work together.
So you need to resolve this as their, their manager. So, conflicts between colleagues, they are inevitable and they're not always bad. A healthy team is a dynamic one in which employees can openly discuss different opinions and approaches, and the best teams focus on and play to individual strengths and cover for each other's weaknesses, although I'm not very good at washing out one acceptable.
Foster healthy communication among colleagues by being forthright with information, finding time to discuss core issues as a team, encouraging you. Trouble can begin though when colleagues attack each other's personal attributes, speak of one another disapprovingly, or categorically condemn each other as bad employees or even as bad people. The discussion is no longer professional or constructive or productive.
One meeting with both colleagues will dispel any opinion you're partial to one of them. So dialogue itself, it's not a debate, it's not a discussion or a conversation. Dialogue is a process for engaging with others in a non-confrontational way that recognises feelings, emotions, opinion and differences in meaning and the power of action.
Dialogue must be carried out with integrity, without self-interest, without either side competing or seeking to win. Dialogue requires self-awareness and reflection, so all parties need to suspend judgement, listen without evaluation, not become defensive about their own position and respect and value each other's contribution. They must recognise that everyone has a different perspective and there is merit in that, and so be open to explore it rather than just jumping to a quick conclusion.
They must realise that memory and experience affect everyone's perceptions and reality is in the eye of the beholder. Dialogue is basically about reaching the sense of collective understanding. So the 5 principles of dialogue are, first of all, listening.
OK, that's listening to somebody else, which shows respect, acknowledgement, and valuing. Listening to yourself, to ensure that you're suspending your prejudices, your own needs and interests, and avoiding judgement, assumptions, opinion, and doubt. I that you're not simply just picking out what confirms your view of the world and filtering out what doesn't.
And listening for collective meaning, listening to the bigger picture, there's a saying that when we have an axe to grind, you tend to hear the grinding of the axe rather than what the other person has to say. The second principle is inquiry and reflection. So inquiry is inquiring to deepen understanding and meaning.
So it's there to build empathy, cooperation and trust. It's about asking how, what, when, where, but not why. Reflection after inquiry is just part of that process.
Respecting is the third principle of dialogue. You may have come with the belief that you're right, confirmed over time in conversation with others. Respecting is honouring another's perspective, attempting to reconcile it and seek a connection with yours.
However, some judgments may be best aired if it increases openness and understanding by assessing the basis for that belief, and it is important to understand the motivation behind the action rather than simply interpreting the outcome based on your own preconceptions. Fourth principle, suspending, suspend your beliefs, but as a, as a reference point, so you hold them as a reference point rather than a drive to action. We all have assumptions, which are things we think we know, which because they come from our own experience and perceptions makes them very different from others and are often the basis of arguments.
So vets and nurses see things in different ways, for example. It's impossible to eliminate assumptions, but identifying them and surfacing them allows them to be analysed and therefore helps understanding. What is your underlying gut response?
Could aspects of the situation be reframed? Why are you so certain about something? Ask yourself these questions.
And finally, voicing. It's not about voicing your own opinion, but about voicing what everyone wants said at that particular point, saying the right thing with the right intent. Those are the principles.
So if you're managing this meeting between two people that engage in dialogue, you need to control the meeting. So invite people on using neutral language. Establish the ground rules for discussion.
This is really important. Use those five principles of dialogue as your ground rules, ensure the focus is on objective facts, solutions, and going towards a resolution. And that there are no interruptions, that each will get a chance to speak.
Police these ground rules throughout this, this dialogue, because people will often go into, into bad habits, so you need to make sure those ground rules are being brought back into play. Take a future oriented perspective with a two step approach, one, get the employees to outline the situation we want to remedy with objective factual language focusing on events, not attitudes, and secondly address strategies for solving the problem in the future, keeping it actionable and specific. And try to avoid issues being clumped together, tackle one at a time and focus on the most important ones first.
Pardon me, I just have a quick drink of water. Make sure you use non-judgmental language throughout the meeting. Avert personal accusation and avoid getting stuck on the problem again.
Keep the focus on facts, examples, solutions, reflections, where things could have been handled differently, where they have been handled differently past, how, how they would handle things differently in the future, and what each would like from each other. And let the situation end on a positive note, summarise the achievements made in the meeting and praise the participants. Look forward to the future of the past being buried.
If meeting separately with each colleague, continue using neutral language and seeking remedies. OK, although the previous principles and techniques work in those situations, there may be some people who are simply unmanageable. They're extremely challenging people are extreme versions of difficult people, and they require much more direct handling and other colleagues.
They often have deeply ingrained personality issues and you do need to say, you know, really what impact are these people having on my practise, on my patients, on my clients, on my team, on the business, and on me personally? What impact are they having? Ensure you show integrity and compassion, consider this big picture and do the right thing on that basis and get support.
If you are dealing with extremely challenging people, get support. Now if during a difficult conversation on employees, an employee discloses that they're suffering from mental ill health, check if they've been to their GP, what recommendations and medications they've had and how that might impact their role. And at the end of the conversation, encourage them to talk to their GP or get expert opinion if they haven't done already, highlight sources of support within and out with your practise, agree what will happen next, for a referral to occupational health or a further meeting to discuss support options.
And after the conversation, think about potential support and adaptations that may help them document what was discussed and agreed and arrange further meetings as necessary and as I've said before, get support. Remember, it's not your role to take on someone else's burden. I don't know how many of you will have done the mental health first aid training, but if you have, you'll know that that's all about dealing with the immediate situation and then pointing people to the correct professional help.
And you also need to ask yourself, what impact is this person's behaviour having on my mental health and on the mental health of the rest of my team. What is the right thing to do? So As Joe Cox says, let's remember we have more in common than divides us.
So our final thoughts now, summary is everyone is somebody's difficult person sometimes. Some people are more challenging than others to us or to our situation. We need to continuously develop ourselves to handle people appropriately.
You can't change difficult people, but you can communicate with them in a way that they can change themselves. You may not always get a result, but the strength you build from the effort will preserve some of the future relationship that matters to you. Utilise the challenges from difficult people, but only where the energy giving outweighs the the energy drain.
Try to label the behaviour of the person. Take care of yourself, develop resilience, get support from others. Seek to understand people and find common ground, and then, then you can influence them.
Thank you, and I love this quote again from Blaise Pascal, the 17th century philosopher, the more I see of mankind, the more I prefer my dog. Thank you very much. I hope you got something useful from us.