The animosity between Alex and Carlos extended beyond their immediate encounters in the business. Their direct reports were careful to align their allegiance within their group. Both groups displayed an “us versus them” attitude.
Alex was an optimistic and intense leader, who pursued opportunities, valued innovation and shared his feelings openly. His group was responsible for developing innovative solutions to client needs.
Carlos led the corporate operations. He was disciplined, organized and took pride in the high standards of his systems. He actively involved himself in overseeing the daily operations and paid particular attention to Alex’s group, as they represented a higher risk to the operations of the firm.
Some recurrent friction between product development and operations is typical in most organizations. I kept this in mind when their boss engaged me to help with their relationship. What I soon discovered was that their animosity toward each other was well beyond anything that could be considered typical. They each described the other with the same phrases: “uncooperative”, “misses the big picture” and “doesn’t listen” were key complaints.
Addressing their negative views of each other involved understanding their stories about each other and their own self-identity.
Alex was an immigrant who worked hard, and always sought to improve through innovation. He viewed Carlos’s behavior of frequent calls and check-ins as disrespectful. In his view, the calls showed a distrust of his judgement and disrupted his flow of thinking through the constant interruptions. He felt that if Carlos trusted him, he would not have to interrupt him with constant, small questions about the progress.
Carlos was a long tenured executive who took pride in his consistent high standards, and close relations with all levels of hierarchy. He thought that communication was important and that Alex’s annoyance was disrespectful. While Alex said he returned calls within 24 hours, Carlos felt his impatience during the conversation.
Carlos’s tenure was a significant factor on several levels. Viewed by his boss as somewhat “battle weary” Carlos was difficult to manage. Most people, including his boss, had taken a passive approach to Carlos’s style. It remained hidden until Alex reacted to what he felt was Carlos’s deliberate attempt to impede much needed change. The impact was felt throughout the team.
Following intense discussions clarifying their differing definitions of respect, they agreed to focus on reexamining a more structured process of communication. They shared aspects of themselves that they regarded as strengths and what they wanted to change in each other.
When people don’t get along, communication tends to be “as needed”. This pattern leaves many important issues unaddressed involving the context of the situation. In the case of Alex and Carlos, their preferred style and working preferences magnified their differences. Alex preferred to work through issues until a reasonable product was developed. He relished concentration and viewed Carlos’s frequent calls as unnecessary and disrespectful.
Eventually their working relationship improved enough to dial down internal tensions and clear a path for more innovation. Additional work was needed with their boss who unintentionally helped fuel the conflict by allowing Carlos’s long term disruptive behavior to become the norm.
In this case, the context with the boss required change to support the new dynamics between Carlos and Alex. All three executives shifted their behavior toward each other and the results were positive and lasting.
