Passive Aggressive Buying Organizations

Dealing with passive aggressive people is challenging. Trying to avoid passive aggressive behavior ourselves can also be challenging (I know it is for me in varied circumstances).

I also think the behavior impacts technology decision-making, which naturally takes me to our Enterprise Technology Adoption profiles. One of our profiles, I think it is fair to say, consistently exhibits passive aggressive behaviors that can be frustrating, unproductive, and costly for providers trying to win good business and help these organizations succeed.

That group is (probably no surprise by the name), the Conflicted Laggards. Oh, by the way, the also are consistently the largest ETA profile group, typically representing over 30% of the market in many different studies.

What are some of the behaviors that I would consider to be signs of passive aggression?

• The prefer short-terms wins almost as often as our most risk-taking profile (Agile Leaders), but they strongly prefer to avoid net new projects and prefer not to replace any technology (sticking with what they have).
• They view technology as being tactical, and not strategic to the business, but they strongly prefer custom solutions. They also are the slowest to react to changing circumstances.

Together this implies a facade of a desire to change (short-term wins) against behaviors that are all about change avoidance.

And there are some numbers to back it up (these are from a few years ago, but let me make a connection to the present next).

In a study we did in 2020, the Conflicted Laggards started down the buying path (we called it a buying effort) more than any other profile. They were talking to many vendors about many things.

But, they ended up deciding to do nothing, the dreaded (for vendors) no-decision, 57% of the time. Contrast that with the Agile Leaders (who say they want to move fast and actually do other things to support that desire), who only had no decisions 27% of the time.

Conflicted Laggards were twice as likely to have no decisions.

Other studies have shown this group putting in less effort to plan and manage change, leading to many more deployment issues and much higher regret. In our most recent study, 75% of respondents working in Conflicted Laggards organizations are pessimists (link for clients )-they regret nearly every As-a-Service purchase they make.

Fast forward to today. ChatGPT made things look easy (which is what Conflicted Laggards want) and largely caused many to adopt (not necessarily widely deploy or scale) GenAI solutions in some form or fashion. Conflicted Laggards are probably all over that.

Until they discover that it is harder than it looks. It may require more technology investment to get the data right. It has large change implications. What's likely to happen: initial excitement (and false signals of commitment) turn into situations that never really go anywhere.

What should you do about this? When I started working on this article, I found this post from the Crisis and Trauma Resource Initiative . It lists 10 strategies for dealing with passive aggressive behavior. But a few stood out in the customer-provider situation:

• Use Assertive, Clear, and Direct Communication - It is important when working with Conflicted Laggards to be extremely clear and detailed on what is needed from them, and what you will do to help, to get value. You also can guide them on steps they'll need to take to get approval and support (based on other customers). Beyond "suggesting" these things, you need to ask for and confirm commitment to actually do what is necessary. Be wary of "sure, we'll do that" responses, with a confirmed and committed time based plan.
• Repeat, Repeat, Repeat - Consistency in your approach is key.
• Disengage with Respect - This is posited as what to do when the other actions aren't working. I think it is critical for providers. If a Conflicted Laggard won't commit to any mutual action plans--that are in their best interest--then you probably want to be spending your resources elsewhere. It is highly likely that the project will be in the 57% no decision group. Or, it will be that deal in the pipeline that is always promised to close next month--and that month takes years to actually be the month.

Conflicted Laggards aren't alone in this behavior, but they are the most notable given the fact they are the largest segment. The chart below expands on the initial headline graphic to show the no decision % for each of the quadrants of our new way of outlining the New Chasm. The organizations with less buying maturity have a much higher percentage of cancelled buying efforts-with Reluctant Followers having an even higher percentage (59%) that Conflicted Laggards (but at least they are less likely to act like they want to move fast with quick wins).

With more and more markets hitting later stages of the mainstream and newer solutions that seemingly appeal to all buyers, understanding these behaviors is critical to driving growth in more challenging times. We at Gartner would love to help you navigate these waters.