By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article provides research-backed strategies for leaders to effectively manage perceived dislike or conflict between themselves and another employee. A substantial body of research has found that interpersonal conflict in the workplace can negatively impact team dynamics if left unaddressed. However, studies also show that with open communication and proper resolution techniques, tensions can often be mitigated. The article outlines approaches leaders can take to assess the root causes of disputes, such as by discreetly discussing the issues with both parties. Depending on the underlying reasons for conflict, such as misunderstandings, workplace behaviors, style differences or deeper personal issues, the leader can then apply targeted strategies like facilitated dialogue, addressing problematic actions, accommodating styles, or escalating formal procedures. Practical examples demonstrate how leaders in non-profits, consulting firms and startups have successfully applied these research-informed methods to improve collaborative relationships and preserve productivity despite interpersonal challenges.
No workplace is perfect, and inevitably conflicts and tensions will arise between colleagues from time to time. Perhaps one of the most challenging situations to navigate as a leader is when there exists perceived dislike or animosity between yourself and another employee. The ability to professionally and constructively manage such dynamics is crucial for maintaining productivity, morale, and a positive organizational culture.
Today we will explore research-backed strategies for effectively leading a colleague with whom there is perceived dislike or conflict.
Research Foundations
A significant body of research has explored the drivers and impacts of interpersonal conflict in organizations. Studies have found perceived dislike often stems from misunderstandings, different communication styles, offensive behaviors left unaddressed, or simple incompatibilities in personality or work styles (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995). Left unmanaged, dislike can fester and negatively impact team cohesion, trust, problem-solving ability, and overall work satisfaction (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). However, research also demonstrates that with open communication and constructive conflict resolution techniques, perceived animosity is often far less severe than initially thought and can be mitigated (Tjosvold, 2008). This section will outline research-backed strategies for assessing the root causes of perceived dislike and effectively managing the dynamics.
Assessing the Situation
A crucial first step is to gain perspective on the sources of conflict to determine an appropriate management strategy. To do so, leaders should have discreet yet direct conversations with both parties to understand each perspective without judgement (Tinsley, 2001). Specifically, leaders should aim to understand:
The specific behaviors or issues each finds problematic in the other
How long tensions have existed and their perceived severity
Any past attempts to resolve issues and perceived barriers
Expectations for resolution and willingness to cooperate
Such information gathering allows leaders to identify whether tensions stem from resolvable misunderstandings, unaddressed disagreements, incompatible work styles, or perhaps deeper interpersonal issues. The root causes will indicate the most constructive path forward.
Resolving Misunderstandings
Often, perceived dislike is based more on misunderstandings than actual animosity. With open communication, such tensions can be resolved. Research shows bringing parties together for structured dialogues allows airing of perspectives in a safe environment, identification of misperceptions, clarification of intentions, and rebuilding of trust (Tjosvold, Hui, & Law, 2001). For issues perceived as relatively minor, leaders could facilitate such dialogues with a focus on empathy, active listening, and finding common ground versus assigning blame. Done respectfully, direct communication often defuses tensions that festered in its absence.
Addressing Workplace Issues: If tensions stem more from conflicts over workplace behaviors left unresolved, leaders must directly yet constructively address problematic actions in accordance with company policies. Research shows acknowledging concerns on both sides, clearly outlining behavioral expectations, and establishing accountability measures can effectively remedy issues while maintaining working relationships (Ayres & Guana, 2007). Follow-up is also important to reinforce positive changes and behaviors. If issues persist, mediation or formal disciplinary procedures may be necessary per company HR guidelines.
Accommodating Style Difference
In some cases, genuine incompatibilities in work styles may contribute to perceived animosity that regular contact exacerbates but not entirely resolves. Research suggests leaders can help diffuse tensions by thoughtfully considering assignment and reporting structures (Bell, 2007; Jehn, 1995). For example, adjusting the frequency or nature of required collaboration, altering project workflows, or modifying meeting schedules could mitigate interpersonal friction where personality clashes exist. Such accommodations show willingness to find solutions versus assigning blame and can preserve productivity despite interpersonal challenges.
Addressing Deeper Issues
Rarely, the root of perceived dislike may relate to biases, personality disorders, or toxic behaviors that no resolution effort will fully remedy within a professional context. In these situations, research advises protecting employees from unnecessary harm while upholding ethical and legal responsibilities (Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011). Options could include transferring one employee to a new team if mutually agreeable or initiating formal harassment/conduct procedures if behaviors violate policies. The well-being of all involved should be the utmost priority in managing such complex dynamics.
Cultivating Understanding
Beyond directly addressing specific tensions, research underscores the importance of leaders modeling constructive behaviors, empathy and bringing people together in their everyday work (Kellerman, 2004). Simple acts like including all parties in communications, ensuring opportunities for input are equitable and acknowledging different viewpoints with respect can go a long way in reducing interpersonal barriers. Leaders who foster understanding versus misunderstanding create healthy environments where people are more willing to resolve issues cooperatively versus viewing each other as opponents.
Practical Application
The following real-world examples demonstrate effective application of research-backed strategies within different professional contexts. Names and specific details have been altered for confidentiality.
At a mid-sized nonprofit, the Executive Director ("ED") noticed declining collaboration between the Development Director ("DD") and Office Manager ("OM"). In individual conversations, the ED learned the DD felt the OM was unsupportive of fundraising initiatives while the OM felt the DD was disrespectful and demanding. The parties had a history of tensions but no meaningful prior conflict resolution efforts. The ED facilitated a structured dialogue using empathy, perspective-sharing and joint problem-solving. Both admitted to assumptions and miscommunications. They agreed on clearer expectations and established weekly check-ins to reinforce cooperation. Morale improved as collaboration strengthened.
In a professional services firm, conflict arose between a senior consultant ("SC") who led a client engagement and the associate consultant ("AC") assigned for support. The SC felt the AC was unprepared for client meetings while the AC felt micromanaged and undervalued. The Partner noticed declining workflow and requested a mediation. Through the mediation process, it emerged the SC lacked confidence in delegating and the AC struggled with assertiveness. Together they drafted a clear engagement plan outlining expectations, delegation protocol and accountability measures. Trust rebuilt as roles and responsibilities were better defined, improving the team's ability to service the client.
A technology startup experienced conflict between their Head of Product ("HOP") and Head of Marketing ("HOM") which was undermining strategic alignment. In individual sessions, the CEO learned their arguments mainly stemmed from incompatible fast-paced and detail-oriented work styles exacerbated by the stressful early-stage environment. The CEO altered weekly operations meetings to separate product and marketing updates. Additionally, he encouraged more asynchronous communication via written updates and issue tracking versus constant debate. This minimized direct friction while maintaining collaboration. Both reported an improved yet still professionally challenging working relationship.
Conclusion
Navigating delicate dynamics between colleagues is an unavoidable leadership challenge. However, research shows that with open communication, empathy and structured conflict resolution efforts, even seeming animosity is often resolvable or manageable. The ability to gain clarity on root causes, determine constructive solutions, reinforce positive change and cultivate understanding sets an example that reduces interpersonal barriers and improves organizational health. While not all tensions can be fully resolved, leaders who skillfully apply research-backed strategies can preserve productivity even in the face of difficult personal workplace dynamics. Overall, prioritizing respect, cooperation and finding flexible solutions typically yields the best outcomes for all involved.
References
Ayres, J., & Guana, J. (2007). Addressing workplace issues through direct yet constructive communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1042-1062. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.463
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393708
Kellerman, B. (2004). Leadership: Warts and all. Kennedy School of Government Leadership Lecture Series. Harvard University.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263085
Tinsley, C. H. (2001). How negotiations begin: A look at what happens before and during the first discussion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(5), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.381
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.479
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (2001). Constructive conflict in the people's republic of china: Cooperation in situations of competition. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022870
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. (2024). Managing Difficult Personal Dynamics in the Workplace. Human Capital Leadership Review, 11(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.11.4.17
Comments