What can you do when peers are having a negative impact on you?
Chemistry doesn’t have to rule your relationships and addressing this can increase your effectiveness. What follows is a case study illustrating three common sources of friction and the five steps taken to achieve a better working relationship and why the actions were effective
George and Allen were leaders in a global media firm. They maintained a polite, yet distant relationship. They shared an appreciation for diverse thought and a low need to be in the spotlight. Yet, the chemistry between them sparked like a faulty wire. The misperceptions were baked in. I worked with them individually as coaching clients and viewed first-hand how they viewed each other through a lens of bad intentions. In both cases, they miscalculated motives and recast the other as an engineer of malicious and self-serving plans.
Misunderstandings between peers is common – with each often mirroring the other. Here were three obstacles that George and Allen were confronting, which are the common pitfalls for many peer relationships.
Common sources of friction
1. Mistrust of the other’s intentions without verifying or discussing them with the other. Author Dr. Trevor Modlin described this as being “prisoners of our own perceptions.” One person’s gain is another’s loss. The rewards of power and recognition are factors which can contribute to less than healthy competition between executives.
In the face of jockeying for power and recognition, it is natural for others to perceive a motive of self-interest even when the other’s actions serve the organization’s best interests and lack a self-serving intent. Success can seed misperceptions. If we are successful, we must be right and the other less so. This can be among the most damaging of all misperceptions, especially if one’s righteousness is voiced to others as a fact. It erodes credibility, potentially casting one as petty and jealous and the other as selfish and political. No one wins.
George and Allen were vying for recognition from senior management on separate yet interconnected projects. Both reported to a senior leader who valued drive and ambition. George respected hierarchy and sought to understand senior management direction before voicing his view. This was perceived by Allen as George’s attempt to gain favor by agreeing with management. Allen’s style was outspoken and challenging, which George perceived the “squeaky wheel” behavior that yielded results by making the most noise. They would exit meetings frustrated by the other’s style and convinced that it was motivated by self-serving intentions.
2. Disagreements over issues based upon personal experiences or perspectives without examining their relevance to the issue at hand. Success and one’s approach can be inaccurately linked. People fall into the trap of thinking that the way they operated will continue their success. Charges of “old school” “new school” thinking may contribute to unnecessarily opposing schools of thought.
Allen was younger and newer to the organization. He brought an energy and a perspective that exhibited personal courage when challenging colleagues and the CEO. George was a respected long-term executive who had risen based on accomplishments and a sense of appropriateness in influencing.
3. Lack of respect for the other based upon style or stereotyping can shut down communication. George viewed Allen as brash and impulsive. Allen saw George as too cautious and politically driven.
While their conversations were polite and cordial, neither was open to the other’s input. Others in both groups were aware of the mistrust and voiced concerns that the animosity was disruptive to the organization.
Upon learning this, Allen and George committed to work on their interpersonal relationship. Each worked hard to reset their relationship into a more collaborative pattern. We started with individual conversations with each, then covered topics together which allowed them to create a path toward a more effective relationship.
A survey of key members in each group yielded a few common themes that surprised both Allen and George. The impact of the unfriendly behavior between them was most strongly expressed by those two levels below the pair through such comments as “There is no support for broader cooperation.” “It is hard to get things done when the other department is involved.” “It’s well known that these departments don’t cooperate.” Allen and George expressed surprise and some indignation about the negative perceptions regarding their cooperation. The survey results got them to devote energy and effort to forge stronger relations.
Here are the five steps we used to achieve a better working relationship.
Step one: Defined the core traits or preferences of the other. I asked each separately to observe the other and identify a working pattern that the other tends to repeat. Allen tended to gather data and to engage in discussions with relevant others while not arriving at a conclusion until he gained certainty that his analysis was valid and reliable. George assessed situations and reach opinions quickly, which he would sometimes share with others. Yet he held back his conclusions until the issues were vetted with others.
Suggesting that each observe the other closely and identify a core trait served two goals. It helped them to be observant of each other, and the process of observation helped to break the internal “stories” they believed about the other. Observing with the goal of identifying a self-perceived strength of another party challenges the internal narrative one has about the other.
Step two: Acknowledged how each executive is influenced. We used an executive self-assessment profile to enhance and organize self-understanding so as to provide insights into preferences which may be hard to observe. What contributes to stress? How does one behave under stress? How does each one reach a conclusion? The assessment added to each person’s personal insight and they shared their insights with each other to create patterns of communication that respected each other’s preferences.
Allen and George had different cognitive patterns which were not apparent through observation. Allen appeared decisive, though his process of reaching the decision was longer than George’s. His internal decision process was open to new data and ideas, which was masked by his tendency to express intended actions with certainty. George demonstrated a more cautious approach, discussing issues thoroughly before sharing his conclusions. Internally, George reached a conclusion quickly. He chose to discuss issues with others to respect the system. Allen was more open to change if someone expressed disconfirming facts.
Step three: Identified sources of stress and how they could be recognized. Sources of stress for each differed. George was sensitive to feedback, though his polished and professional demeanor belied his sensitivity. Allen distrusted diplomatic feedback and craved directness, though he projected a brusque personality which certainly didn’t welcome feedback. Understanding the difference between how leaders behave under stress versus how they are feeling is often a key factor in strengthening a relationship.
George thrived in the face of complexity by focusing on an issue at a time without interruption. As he was responsive to others, he projected a manner which welcomed frequent walk-in updates. Allen was at his best when bombarded with new information. George viewed Allen’s well-meaning updates as annoying signs of insecurity. Allen viewed George’s need to concentrate as stand-offish and withholding information.
Step four: Became clear about what really matters to each person. In searching for a deeper meaning and bond for their relationship, it became clear that both George and Allen supported the values of the organization. They wanted to increase its competitive strength and to create positive momentum. They differed on the desired path to achieve competitive success. They both acknowledged the value of considering a broader perspective.
Why was this process successful with two people who were predisposed to having a negative reaction to the other? Guided conversations about preferences and values allowed George and Allen to understand each other through a more empathic and accurate lens.
The conversations led to depersonalizing the personalities. Talking about what is preferred in a relationship can help with objectivity. Moving ideas and proposed actions from the ‘right / wrong’ category to a preference allows the other to respect the preference and minimizes the chance of a misunderstanding coming from inaccurately inferring intentions.
Step five: Discovered shared values (for common ground). Nearly all relationships have some common ground. This can be as mundane as a shared interest in a non-work-related activity to something larger, such as a shared belief in the company’s values, as was the case with George and Allen. While understanding and respecting different preferences in each other is powerful, finding common ground can be a great equalizer.
We closed our conversations with some suggestions for setting realistic expectations for success in peer relationships.
George and Allen will continue to create ‘trigger’ annoyances in each other because they will address situations from their strengths, which are different from each other. These flashes of annoyance are more easily addressed with heightened awareness and new techniques to anticipate and address the differences.
Checking back months later the effect of a stronger partnership was evident. As the tensions subsided, distrust between both teams, at all levels, waned. Periodic follow-up continues but the results so far are very encouraging.
