High Standards as a Pathway to Justice, Part 2: What about the people who struggle with...people?

12/17/2024

High Standards as a Pathway to Justice, Part 2: What about the people who struggle with...people?

In this second and final part of the High Standards as a Pathway to Justice series, we’ll look at how to support folks who are “not people people” when an organization elevates the expected standards for interpersonal communication and repair when there is conflict.

In Part 1, we looked at how to work with (or around) someone who is not on board with changing systems to a power-with framework because they feel empowered or entitled to the less-than-awesome-for-everyone status quo.

So what about the people who struggle with nuanced interpersonal interactions, don’t understand power dynamics well, and/or generally have a hard time working with others?

I’m not talking about full-on sociopaths here. If you have folks who roll from conflict to conflict, fanning the flames as they go (even though they say they hate conflict), you might have a high-conflict personality - here’s a podcast about the book The Five Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life, that addresss those situations.

This article is about people who might identify as shy, socially awkward, neurodivergent, neuro-spicy, socially anxious, have a strong personality, or claim they’re just not good with people. It’s also about the people who don’t have any label or fit into an easy category (it’s ok if people are unique and distinct!). The label is not important here; the point is behavior alignment.

Engaging in repair and building stronger interpersonal relationships requires a degree of cognitive empathy that only some have developed. Cognitive empathy is the skill of identifying and understanding how someone else feels and taking that understanding into account when making decisions together. We know some folks who have difficulty with everyday interpersonal interactions, so asking them to take on a useful and productive role in a conflict-related conversation might be a big stretch.

Some folks need more specific support to engage productively in the entire process. If you’re asking people to be personally accountable for their behavior and to say something or take action when they observe behavior that is not aligned with the values of the organization, here are some strategies that support everyone in the process:


  • Make a crystal clear step-by-step process.

    • Be aware of unspoken expectations and assumptions - make the implicit explicit.

    • Include common pitfalls and how to get things back on track.

  • Make the steps accessible.

    • Consider how and when folks will use the process. Should there be an audio, infographic, video, or other version that is easy to use on the phone?

    • Is the language understandable for your people? (For example, will this be used by adults, teens, or both?)

  • Train the skills of interacting with people how you want people to interact!


Folks often hesitate to engage in these conversations because they think they will make the situation worse at the moment or damage the relationship in the future. Having a set of steps or a consistent process, everyone knows and expects can alleviate some of those fears. Expecting people to use the process means supporting them in using the steps despite their hesitation.

Each person may need something different to help them engage in repair-based conflict response. Your best course of action is not to assume what people need. You can observe where folks struggle and ask what support they need.

For example, if someone tells you that they have a hard time approaching someone to discuss behavior and repair, you could help them practice the conversation and/or provide perspective on the other person who may not know the impact of their behavior and/or serve as the messenger carrying specific messages from one person to the other (relaying their words, not speaking for them!). You could also coach this person in ways to say what they need to say that land as open, inviting, curious, and repair-oriented if they worry they’ll just stir things up unnecessarily.

People often want someone on hand to make sure the conversation goes ok. That means being present with folks for the conversation, not advocating for a side. Sometimes, folks need a facilitator to lead the conversation if they feel they’ll get flustered or not say what they mean. This concern can be exacerbated if there is a real or perceived power difference between the people involved. A third party can step in and keep the conversation on track or make sure each person is heard. Sometimes, people need to build some trust with someone before they feel like they can engage in the conversation - remember that trust means it is not a controlled, entirely predictable, safe situation. In this context, trust means you think that the other person will be present with you and participate in the conversation. You can not have trust and control at the same time. Building people’s courage to move forward with trust, despite not feeling control, safety, or comfort, is another valuable role for leaders.

With any of these strategies, you will need a united front of leadership reinforcing the behaviors you want from your teammates. If you want people to follow a process, everyone (even people on the sidelines) needs to champion the process and its steps. Training your leadership team to be consistent may be the more profound challenge to making the process take root.

If everyone knows that they can go to a specific leadership helper person when they are uncomfortable having a clear and direct conflict conversation, and that helper person will have the conversation for them by explaining to everyone involved everyone else’s perspective, needs, desires, etc., your collective progress toward a more just organization will be glacially slow, intermittent, or nonexistent.

Get clear with your leadership helper people on how they can be a supportive part of the process. It may be challenging to see people make slow and arduous progress doing something that is easy for you to do. It may be difficult to watch people be uncomfortable in the process because you think you’ll make it better by taking action for them when things are hard. The leadership move here is to shift into an educator role vs an “I’ll do it for you” role. How can leaders and helpers teach people to do what is hard for them? What small steps in the right direction can you help them take? What additional information or practice can you provide (that isn’t a stalling tactic on their end to avoid doing the hard thing)?

Somewhere along the line, the question may arise: what if someone is not capable of having this type of conversation?

Discomfort, lack of skill, and a strong desire for control are not the same as incapacity. Accepting that engaging in repair-oriented conversations with others will never be 100% comfortable or easy to control is part of the process (some would say it is THE process).

Very few people are incapable of learning or being supported to engage in even the most potentially messy interpersonal processes. Ideally, your support will train people to engage in the process with less support the next time they have a conflict.

For example, I heard of someone who would only accept written feedback. This person refused to have in-person conversations about feedback on their performance or skills. In some environments, this could work, and notes could be passed back and forth. However, in other situations, the pace or physical situation would present too much risk or delay if someone only received written feedback. That person would not be a good fit for some situations.

Translate that need to a situation where people engage in repair conversations. It is entirely possible to have a repair conversation in writing (or via audio notes). People can share ideas and come to agreements without literally sitting face to face and talking. That is preferable in some cases so that the people involved have time to absorb information, process, and be coached in appropriate responses before they respond. You can provide support at every step. However, if there is a person who needs more intensive support or does not participate, that is another issue.

If you cannot provide all the support people may need, be clear about that limitation on your part. You’ll likely discover this type of limit later when trying to support someone through the process. Lowering your standards and expectations for participation will not help. (See Part 1 for more on this topic!) Acknowledging your limitations is a step in the right direction.

It is unlikely that you are adequately resourced to support all types of people in all ways to be an optimal member of your organization.

But the looming question remains: What should be done about the people who struggle to engage in the process when you lack the resources to support them adequately?

You and your organization may not be a good fit for them.

You are better off figuring this out before a conflict arises. Identifying the skills (and willingness) needed to participate in a repair-oriented conflict response process and having people agree to engage in the process sets clear expectations for your teammates. Clarifying how you can support people in learning skills and participating is another good idea. Be equally clear that opting out of the process entails opting out of being a part of the organization.

Supporting people to engage in repair despite discomfort and awkwardness can positively impact all their relationships and your organization. Discomfort is not an actual limit to people’s capabilities. Accepting your limitations for supporting people while upholding a high standard for engagement in repair will help you clarify who is and is not a good fit for your organization.