Annoyances Essay Example

Dealing with people who always seem to know everything is often annoying because they cannot be convinced that they are at some point wrong. One may end up quarreling or arguing with them on a simple issue that can be corrected through simple talking and understanding each other. Therefore, in this case, the best way to persuade these people with annoying behavior so that they can change or minimize them is through shifting from being reactive to proactive that would minimize misunderstanding or misinterpretation (Woods, David D, et al. n.p). When one feels offended by someone's deeds or words, he or she should come up with various ways of viewing the occurring situation before acting. For example, the fact that a co-worker seems to know everything, one may assume him or her and keep their selves busy to avoid personalizing their behavior. Through this action, their expressions can be perceived more objectively as they do this because they require attention or someone who tolerates their behavior. Widening the situation's perspective can help reduce any possibility of misunderstanding. Also, with the annoying co-worker, one can try put himself or herself in his or her shoes in times of problems and the reactions that they would portray in that scenario (Sleeper, Manya, et al. n.p). For instance, one can use empathetic statements so that their unacceptable behaviors are not excused as they assume to know everything maybe because of their backgrounds, own issues or flaws that they need.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Additionally, the spotlight might be enacted on them as it may help in equalizing power in communication. Something that is always common with aggressive people is that they always like to place attention on people to make them feel inadequate or uncomfortable. They are also quick in pointing out the things that are wrong with someone or the way one does things and their focus is always consistently on "what is wrong" rather than finding ways of solving a problem. The communication type is in most cases, intended to control and dominate instead of taking care of issues that arise (Sleeper, Manya, et al. n.p). Therefore, if one reacts to them by trying to be defensive, they may fall into the trap of being scrutinized by the aggressive team, giving them more power while they pick on the wronged or the defensive person with impunity. In this case, a powerful and simple way for the dynamic to be changed is by putting back the spotlight on the person with difficulty by asking questions (Brinol, Pablo, Derek, and Richard, 90). For example, if they try using abusive words in their conversation, one may opt to keep his or her questions probing and constructive. Thus, when the difficult person is put on the spotlight, one can help neutralize their influences over other colleagues.

Also, when these people are more annoying, one may opt to pick his or her battles to save on energy, time and grief. Not every annoying person or anyone that is always proud and rigid in accepting corrections requires direct confrontation on their bad behavior. A colleague who feels offended by their behavior may decide to choose two scenarios not to get involved in their conversations. First, when the annoying person has situational temporary power over a polite and humble colleague, the best way he or she can be avoided is by ignoring them or finding something to keep them busy instead of listening to their doubtful statements. Also, where one thinks that the annoying colleague will lie about a certain critical situation, he or she might think twice about their confrontation even if they are the best or have good knowledge about a concerned issue, to derive certain benefits (Woods, David D, et al. n.p).

Moreover, when there is an arising issue in an organization that needs to be discussed in groups, people who always seem to be on front line of all intel should be given the last chance to speak after important issues have been addressed. This action is to make them lay low with their pride and in giving out wrong or exaggerated information so that by the time they are given the chance to speak, they have nothing to say or conclude (Woods, David D, et al. n.p). Additionally, they can be corrected by using appropriate humor when they are seen to go overboard to show one's detachment or problems rolling off their back. Having a sense of humor is always a powerful tool in communication (Brinol, Pablo, Derek, and Richard, 90). For example, if the annoying person says abusive or hurting words to his or her colleague, the offended can ignore the scenario by smiling quipped and good-naturedly and walking away without saying a word. This action can make the person who annoys have second thoughts in his or her words and feel like withdrawing them, something that might make them think before they say certain sensitive words. When humor is appropriately used, it can shine a light on truthful behaviors or actions, show that one has a composure that is superior or disarms difficult characters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, no organization can lack one or two annoying people who must be hated or ignored by colleagues because of their behavior. although at times they can make an organization lively, their annoying behaviors can be minimized or changed by putting spotlight on them, one picking his or her own battles when interacting with the annoying people, shifting from being reactive to proactiveness and using appropriate humor when addressing their difficulties to create good understanding and avoid quarrels due to misinterpretation.

Works Cited

Brinol, Pablo, Derek D. Rucker, and Richard E. Petty. "Naive theories about persuasion: Implications for information processing and consumer attitude change." International Journal of Advertising 34.1 (2015): 85-106.

Sleeper, Manya, et al. "I Would Like To..., I Shouldn't..., I Wish I...: Exploring Behavior-Change Goals for Social Networking Sites." Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 2015.

Woods, David D., et al. Behind human error. CRC Press, 2017.