Listen to this article:
Abstract: Effective collaboration is critical for organizational success, but aligning diverse personalities and working styles can be challenging. This article explores research-based strategies for productive teamwork, even when personality clashes or interpersonal tensions arise. Key approaches include respecting differences while finding common ground, maintaining transparent communication, addressing conflicts constructively, prioritizing shared purpose over personal agendas, and embracing compromise. By leading with integrity and a balanced perspective, managers can inspire cooperation across functions, mergers, and international projects. While conflicts cannot be avoided, addressing tensions constructively and emphasizing common interests sustains collaborative cultures essential for addressing complex problems and achieving shared goals.
In any organization, effective collaboration is key to success. Teams must work together cohesively to accomplish shared goals and initiatives. However, getting various personalities and working styles aligned is often challenging. While we cannot choose our coworkers, we are responsible for finding constructive ways of relating despite difficulties that arise.
Today we will explore research-based strategies for collaborating productively with others, even when personality clashes or interpersonal tensions threaten to derail working relationships. With a focus on open communication, mutual understanding, and compromise, leaders can overcome conflicts to achieve cooperation.
Respecting Differences while Finding Common Ground
Diversity of thought and experience within teams fuels creativity and innovation. However, blending viewpoints also breeds potential discord if members fail to respect differences (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Before cooperation can occur, individuals must acknowledge their own biases and perspectives are limited. Finding common goals and interests provides an entry point for setting aside disagreements (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Shared objectives, like serving customers or the broader organizational mission, can help refocus energies on synergizing talents. Rather than demands, asking thoughtful questions helps illuminate others’ perspectives and generate alternative solutions (Stone et al., 1999).
Communication is Key
Transparent, two-way dialogue lays the groundwork for cooperation despite conflicts (Gibb, 1961). Teams performing at their best spend time clarifying expectations, confirming understanding, and airing concerns (Hargie & Tourish, 2009). Active listening shows respect while surfacing miscommunications causing friction. Framing issues factually rather than emotionally facilitates problem-solving (Farmer et al., 2003). Regular check-ins keep collaborations on track by addressing tensions before they escalate. When difficult discussions are inevitable, maintaining an open and inquisitive stance models constructive engagement for others.
Address Conflict Constructively
While avoiding or suppressing conflicts preserves superficial harmony, these approaches damage trust and stall progress long-term (Tjosvold, 2008). Addressing tensions directly and resolving underlying issues builds confidence and cooperation. Thomas-Kilmann’s (1974) conflict modes framework illustrates five styles for handling discord: competing (asserting views forcefully), accommodating (yielding readily to others), avoiding (sidestepping issues), compromising (finding middle ground), and collaborating (integrating inputs to satisfy all parties). The latter two prove most conducive for long-term relationships and team effectiveness, as each side makes an effort to understand others and find mutually agreeable solutions.
Focus on Shared Purpose over Personal Agendas
Collaboration thrives when individuals place priority on collective goals over individual priorities (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). This involves check egos at the door and accept alternative perspectives as valuable contributions rather than threats (Sessa & London, 2015). Check assumptions and mitigate unhealthy competition by recognizing strengths in others. Maintain enthusiasm for the team’s mission, celebrating small wins together and reinforcing one another’s efforts and ideas (Campion et al., 1993). A shared sense of purpose strengthens bonds and keeps energy focused outward despite interpersonal frictions that will inevitably arise in close-quarter teamwork.
Compromise where Reasonable
While maintaining principles when strongly felt, teams prosper when members accept imperfect solutions requiring give-and-take (Sessa & London, 2015; Thomas, 1976). This involves assessing positions pragmatically and relinquishing attachment to personal preferences where team interests warrant flexibility. Compromise does not connote weakness but reasonability - a hallmark of strong collaboration. Continually revisiting issues with an open mind and willingness to rethink stances fosters cooperation by building understanding versus resentment.
Lead with Integrity and a Balanced Perspective
As informal or formal leaders, maintaining fairness, consistency and diplomacy is paramount for gaining cooperation from varied constituents (Yukl, 2006; Zhang et al., 2015).. Acknowledging limitations in knowledge while avoiding actions disrespecting others’ dignity fosters trust. Leaders steer clear of factions by considering perspectives holistically rather than favoring a subset. Unambiguous communication of expectations along with recognition of contributions keeps all pulling in the same direction. An even-keeled, judicious approach to challenges prevents single incidents from disproportionately damaging relationships or team morale. Authentic concern for people coupled with a solutions-oriented mindset inspires commitment to shared goals above petty personality clashes or power struggles.
The following section applies these collaboration strategies within specific organizational contexts and examples.
Collaborating Across Divisions
In large companies with multifaceted operations, cross-functional cooperation is crucial yet inherently complex given varied departmental priorities and cultural norms (Dougherty, 1992). For example, Research and Development teams aiming to launch innovative new products must carefully partner with Marketing to determine messaging resonating with target audiences. Personal/professional styles often clash amid competing deadlines or perspectives on feasibility/profitability trade-offs.
To align initiatives effectively, regular “innovation summits” bring representative from R&D, Marketing, Sales, and Production together to: listen for understanding of respective pressures/constraints (Address Conflict Constructively); clarify how each role supports customers and the company mission (Focus on Shared Purpose); identify reasonable compromises where priorities diverge such as staggered rollouts satisfying innovation appetites yet ensuring quality control (Compromise); and empower sub-committees to address inter-project handoffs transparently and collaboratively (Communication is Key). Focusing on the customer experience rather than parochial interests generates commitment to cooperative problem-solving despite intrinsic tensions between functions.
Mergers & Acquisitions
The post-merger period brings turbulence as distinct work cultures integrate amid uncertain job roles and priorities (Weber & Tarba, 2012). Personal insecurities flare and coalitions form along former company lines if diverse views aren’t respected. For a technology firm acquiring a software developer, the CEO establishes mutual understanding as top priority. Town halls emphasize listening without judgment to surface anxieties (Respecting Differences). Cross-functional “navigator groups” facilitate open discussions on retaining strengths of both legacy cultures while streamlining redundancies (Address Conflict). Social events off-site nurture informal trust as integration proceeds collaboratively (Focus on Shared Purpose). Maintaining this balanced, empathetic approach to change management inspires cooperation critical for capturing synergies despite natural interpersonal frictions inherent in major organizational transitions.
International Project Teams
Global initiatives require transcending geographic and cultural boundaries to synergize diverse skills (Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). However, collaboration across languages and workstyles presents inherent challenges for cooperation if not carefully managed. For an automaker launching electric vehicles across Asia, Europe, and North America, the VP spearheads teams comprising regional engineering/marketing experts using virtual workspaces (Communication is Key). Cross-functional “integration sessions” surface divergent viewpoints respectfully through structured discussion (Respecting Differences). Establishing protocols clarifying nuanced industry regulations avoids unintentional miscues damaging trust (Address Conflict). Recognizing varied holidays, work norms, and individual contributions inspires cooperative problem-solving on tight deadlines despite inherent societal differences between partners (Focus on Shared Purpose). With patience and cultural sensitivity, even international project teams can overcome barriers to productive collaborations.
Conclusion
In any organization, balancing varied personalities and workstyles within teams presents an ongoing challenge. However, maintaining respect, open communication, and a shared focus on outcomes above preferential working methods provides frameworks for overcoming frictions that will inevitably arise. With integrity and comprehension, leaders bring out cooperation in others even when disagreements surface. Prioritizing mutual understanding over individual agendas and finding reasonable solutions through compromise sustains collaborative cultures imperative for addressing complex problems. While conflicts cannot be avoided, addressing tensions constructively and emphasizing common interests inspires commitment to shared goals above petty discrepancies in workstyles or opinions. Ultimately, collaborating effectively involves continual efforts to blend perspectives for synergistic outcomes benefiting customers, employees and wider stakeholders.
References
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel psychology, 46(4), 823-850.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of management journal, 44(5), 956-974.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization science, 3(2), 179-202.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard business review, 82(10), 139-146.
Farmer, S. M., Van Dyne, L., & Kamdar, D. (2003, August). The contextual determination of citizenship: When extra-role behaviors are valued more than in-role behaviors. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2003, No. 1, pp. C1-C6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of communication, 11(3), 141-148.
Hargie, O., & Tourish, D. (Eds.). (2009). Auditing organizational communication: A handbook of research, theory and practice. Routledge.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person–environment fit. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3, 3-50.
Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2015). Continuous learning in organizations: Individual, group, and organizational perspectives. Psychology Press.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. Penguin.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(1), 19-28.
Weber, Y., & Tarba, S. Y. (2012). Mergers and acquisitions process: The use of corporate culture analysis. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Collaboration despite Difficult Relationships: Strategies for Working Effectively with Others, Even When Personality Clashes Arise. Human Capital Leadership Review, 19(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.19.1.7
