>> Check out the slideshow + video on slideshare : http://bit.ly/18PxdSy
>> Check out the video on Youtube : http://bit.ly/14lx3nG

LACT: Having an altruistic action and being attentive to others are often part of the general motivations of a staff representative. As for you, HR functions, they are there to protect, the law says it well, moreover.

But at some point, going from protection to overprotection leads to weakening; often these "white knights" are ultra-reactive people, they see poor people as being extremely fragile. It's a bit like a mother, when she's super protective: "Oh dear, your hand, you're in pain, you could be in pain..." and hop: "Wait, wait, I'm going to hold your hand, I'm going to take action. for you "…

Participant:
he takes a position of savior…

LACT: Exactly. In relation to these people, what is delicate and difficult is that from their point of view – and from our point of view as well – protecting is good, and moreover it is part of the mandate of representing the staff. It happens that some staff representatives are more focused on their own interests, but for others, in general, they are there to protect.  

The important point is this limit between protection and hyper-protection, because the latter has the effect of weakening. They tend to be very reactive, for example in the event of tensions and conflicts, they immediately seek to arbitrate them, to intervene very quickly.

Obviously, if it's about protection and it works, that's good, but not when this "protection" doesn't contribute to finding with management the expected solutions that would finally make it possible to appease the things, and that they perceive that it is not sufficient, to the point of wanting to reinforce it… Moreover, as they are knights, there is a certain pleasure in fighting which comes to mingle with all that, and which makes it all the more difficult to intervene
with them. You have to be able to reframe them by saying: “protect yes, but be careful: if you overprotect, then you make things worse”.

It will therefore be necessary to give them indications in terms of communication, in terms of relational attitude, very precise in order to channel them better.

So concretely, in your case, you say that this person is all the more reactive because he is part of the service, because he lives with the problem, whereas he should also be able to have more perspective, which is also part of the difficulty of your case. You say this person always opposes what you say. So, just a small clarification at this point: when faced with a person who is predictably and systematically opposed, as they are with you, then I'm going to ask you to prescribe the symptom for them. And in all your communications addressed to him, alone or in a group, start by telling this person that in relation to what you want to say, he is likely to object to what you are going to say. You must, even before she objects, reveal her reaction. We call it “playing the bumper”, with someone whose reaction is predictable, is often the result of strong reactivity. It's in spite of herself, it's involuntary, she can't help it. So it can be with someone who is angry, or someone who is in systematic opposition - we can have many different forms, - or even someone who would burst into tears. So, even before undergoing the reaction which is often very cumbersome because it actually gives us the impression of fighting without being effective, we must reveal the symptom to him: what we are going to say will trigger this reaction. By doing this, this already allows you to have a little bit of control over the reaction because you are not going to undergo it completely since you are going to prescribe it. And you will see it is a very small tool, but it is extremely valuable.

When someone opposes and is used to it and he sees that by opposing he neutralizes his interlocutor, there is generally an emotional reaction of pleasure which is: "I manage to neutralize him even if at the same time I say to myself: ah definitely, he's not listening, etc. ". There, by announcing his reaction, we will actually sabotage his pleasure.  

And by sabotaging it, you will notice that its reaction will still be present, but gradually less and less present. The scenario that this opposing person develops, in general, is that he is not heard. This emotional screen reinforces an altered scenario. But here, we tell her that we hear her, that we know her...

Then, compared to someone who behaves like a white knight excessively, especially when he's an elected official, with insistent demands, it's going to be to take a much lower position… – it would take me longer
to better explain this strategic movement and better formulate the terms of the message - but roughly speaking the strategy to be followed would be to say to oneself: "good, very good, certainly, we don't listen to him enough, we don't really realize the situation to which his claims relate, he will have to be given a task of observation to bring me more precision which will help me to better understand”. Through this observation task, the person must thus say to himself: "that's it, we are finally ready to listen to me". Through this movement, what we are going to try to interrupt is its over-reactivity. This will be to bring this person to observe his collaborators, his colleagues who are not doing well and to take time before acting and reacting.

In general, in this kind of situation, it is the over-reactivity, the over-investment of the mandated white knight that makes them saviors much too quickly and leads them to do things in the place of others.

For example, when someone isn't doing well because they can't manage conflict or tension, that person will complain. So it's perfect for our fellow savior who is next door and who will hasten to take care of her. It's all good for the person being taken care of, but it's also a vicious circle for her because she's going to be relieved, she's not going to take charge and suddenly she doesn't learn to manage more difficult situations. . This person is thus weakened and therefore this increases his complaint and his request for delegation. Whoever assumes this delegation acts, acts, acts, will find that his intervention is not necessarily very effective and, of course, will become more and more offensive and vindictive, especially when it comes to an agent.