67

The situation: My colleague (let's call him Joe) and I are department heads at a small startup (different departments). I have a lot more experience in my area. We are friends, and we work closely together, but lately have been having some pretty heated arguments, and I feel really bad about it since this is a tight-knit company and this is disruptive for everyone. I want to figure out how to avoid getting into arguments and help resolve the issues in a more productive way.

Examples of the things that started the last few arguments:

  • Joe questions technical decision that I made (that he doesn't at the time have enough background to understand the reasons for) in front of the whole team. Now I'm pretty clear on the difference between a "why would you do something so stupid" kind of question and a question that comes from genuine curiosity, and this definitely wasn't curiosity.

  • Joe says that it is "unacceptable" that a deliverable from my department will not be ready when planned, when the head of the company has just directed us to shelve that temporarily and work on something else.

  • Joe questions details of a workflow in my department (which he has never seen before) in front of junior colleagues.

  • The cherry: Joe directly tells me what to do, "you're going to have to do X" (that is after I had explained why this is not a good idea).

I know I don't react well in situations like this. I typically respond by stating my reasoning, but emotionally I am too keyed up because it feels like an attack, and the situation seems to escalate from both sides from there, so we're talking high voices and over each other (and it pretty much doesn't matter what we say at that point). Also, for some of these questions I can't lay out a perfectly reasoned and convincing answer on the spot, especially after I've gotten upset (of course I could lay out a very thoughtful and reasoned answer given an hour and in email).

The part that really hurts is that we are friends, and that the company is trying to do something important that we all strongly care about: I'd think we would be able to not get into petty interpersonal issues like this.

I'd like to figure out some ways to not get drawn in, react slower and more thoughtfully, defuse, deflect, instead of reacting fast and being seen as combative. I'd also like some ways to call out and discourage what I see as bad behavior and disrespect. How do I do it?

Improve this question
8
  • Is reporting this thing to your supers an option in your situation?
    – bunyaCloven
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 14:28
  • 30
    It sounds to me like Joe is frustrated by some of the decisions being made. I know I've been tempted to behave like he is on some occasions. It's often difficult to pin down exactly why I feel that way, but a lot of the time, I think it stems from a sense that my concerns are being outright ignored. That doesn't excuse the behavior by any stretch, but it may offer some potential approaches. It may help to discuss the decision enough to assure him you've through through the implications and the problems he sees; ideally, you might even mention some means of mitigating them.
    – jpmc26
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 17:03
  • 4
    @jpmc26 "concerns are being outright ignored" - That probably hits the nail on the head, yes. Maybe they are ignored for good reasons, but that doesn't help if you don't understand the reasons (and therefore can't agree with them)
    – TomQP
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 21:11
  • 8
    When he starts an argument, remind him that you two are about to have a fight about it, and it's unnecessary. And then tell him to take some time and write down his case, and email you. And INSIST ("No, no, no, no! We're not having that conversation right now."). Two things can happen: either you'll see that he has a point, or (most probably) he'll realize that his argument is dumb. I have often found the latter to be the case.
    – sampathsris
    Commented Nov 3, 2016 at 5:19
  • 14
    When did you two "friends" last have a beer together? Talk to him, preferably alone, and away from work.
    – Mawg
    Commented Nov 3, 2016 at 9:24

12 Answers 12

Reset to default
62

This may be a power struggle.

Don't raise your voice.

At some point just say "I understand you have some concerns but this is my decision on the matter."

On workflow tell him that needs to be another conversation.

If he asks a question you are not ready to respond to then tell him you will need to get back with him on it.

As far as "you're going to have to do X" I would just not respond or tell him "I just covered why I am not going to do X".

Improve this answer
7
  • 23
    Yes, that is what the OP wants to do, he pretty much stated these things. His question is, how to become able to do that...
    – AnoE
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 14:16
  • 3
    Make it clear that certain matters should be discussed in a different meetings.
    – Jonast92
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 14:28
  • 2
    Alas, make it clear who is responsible for your department. He is not your boss.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 15:06
  • 4
    @Peteris that is like answering "Just keep calm and think straight" to the question "What should I do in a panic situation?" - It sounds easy on paper, but keeping calm defusing situations is in fact so hard that there are mediation-courses to learn this, if it were easy, no one would regret an outburst after the fact, but people cannot always simply act rational.
    – Falco
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 9:44
  • 1
    Peteris, aside of what @Falco said, it does not matter if it is a silly question; it is the question. To quote the OP: "I'd like to figure out some ways to not get drawn in, react slower and more thoughtfully, defuse, deflect, instead of reacting fast and being seen as combative. I'd also like some ways to call out and discourage what I see as bad behavior and disrespect. How do I do it?"
    – AnoE
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 11:51
61

Don't get sucked into conflicts you're not prepared for. Just diffuse them and document issues.

'Mate, flick me an email and I'll have a look into it later, I'm a bit busy right now.' or 'I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is, send me an email outlining it so I can concentrate on your issues, I'll get on it asap.'

The guy is a colleague not a superior, nothing constructive comes from yelling matches. If a colleague yells at me I just tell them to stop yelling and attempt to walk away from it. If they want to grab me then that's their lookout.

Improve this answer
5
  • 29
    This. If he's truly being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, you'll want it in writing to build a case. If there's a possibility you're misunderstanding, or he's not representing his concerns well when speaking to you, it's at least possible that when he writes it down some additional clarity will be introduced. Most importantly, you're not having a face-to-face verbal argument where you both walk away only remembering what you feel was said, rather than what was actually said.
    – Matt Mills
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 16:20
  • 3
    +1 Not to mention his documented objections are valuable on their own merit. He might have indeed identified a weakness that needs to be addressed, or they might be used to prepare the OP for a similar line of questioning from his superiors. Objections are valuable, it's the attitude the guy needs to shed.
    – rath
    Commented Nov 3, 2016 at 12:20
  • 1
    Assuming it's details that are outside the scope of the meeting or too low level to be relevant, I've used some variation of, "Good question - let's talk about that offline. I can shoot you an email to figure out a good time to sit down and discuss it." or "There isn't time to go into it now, but I can send you the details of how that decision and if you have any questions we can discuss it." (US east coast, not sure how office language varies geographically)
    – Blackhawk
    Commented Nov 3, 2016 at 16:33
  • 1
    This seems like just avoiding the problem. This may work, but this may be a problem that needs to be addressed instead.
    – Goose
    Commented Nov 3, 2016 at 21:50
  • 3
    @Goose no, it's not avoiding it, it's taking it away from an unproductive, unhealthy, bad-for-morale shouting match, and putting the problem into a context where it can more easily and professionally be resolved. At the very least it documents concerns.
    – Kilisi
    Commented Nov 3, 2016 at 22:33
23

I'd like to figure out some ways to not get drawn in, react slower and more thoughtfully, defuse, deflect, instead of reacting fast and being seen as combative. I'd also like some ways to call out and discourage what I see as bad behavior and disrespect. How do I do it?

My general advice to get out of this mess is to have more 1-to-1 meetings with Joe.

In case he asks or questions you in front of all (or junior colleagues), then politely request a 1-to-1 meeting based on your argument. The impression I am getting is that, regardless of his questions/objections (not saying right or wrong), you don't like to be questioned in front of everyone. Is that true?

The cherry: Joe directly tells me what to do, "you're going to have to do X" (that is after I had explained why this is not a good idea).

Don't just go for the wordings. Going to have to do X doesn't always mean someone is ordering you. Some people do use it as a quote to advise or suggest.

We are friends, and we work closely together,

I have seen people who are not friends but in same situations, so I would take friendship as a positive key here, but if things still don't get better, then work toward defining working boundaries for your department in management meetings.

Improve this answer
3
  • 17
    I'd agree. Pulling the "Let's take this off-line" card can work to resolve many problems. You get time to think, the meeting doesn't get derailed, you're demonstrating good time management, and you take the argument away from the team (managers arguing gives a bad impression on their teams).
    – user44108
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 11:51
  • 1
    Superb answer. Also, after making this becomes a practice, the OP can keep going back to it like "Joe, I really think this should be offline", and if he presses, follow up with "Joe, I'd really prefer not to tie up a meeting with this, let's talk offline". Better still, once done, if he brings it up again "Joe, we've already discussed this offline"
    – Old_Lamplighter
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 15:24
  • 1
    "Going to have to do X doesn't always mean someone is ordering you. Some people do use it as a quote to advise or suggest." -- +1 on that one! Reading your answer, I've just realized that I must be doing this all the time myself; somehow even seeing OP's "directly telling me what to do" phrase didn't quite lead me to see that as a possible (and likely!) interpretation.
    – laxxy
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 12:35
16

These are the three phrases you need to keep in mind, even as he does a poetry slam on you:

  1. Self-Control - do not respond to provocation.
  2. Restraint - don't rip him a new one in front of his crowd.
  3. "Dark Alley" - i.e. let's take this off-line. We can't have two departments heads going at each other in front of the entire staff.

Invite him to your office. Have lunch with him. Go over your areas of disagreement one by one. Have a senior manager come in and act as a moderator. If the senior manager has enough authority to act as an arbitrator, so much the better. If there is no senior manager available, you'll have to rely on yourself and hopefully, on your colleague's good sense and intellectual integrity i.e. he should admit when you have a point.

Best case is that all your areas of disagreement are resolved. Second best case is that your areas of disagreement have narrowed. Bad case is that nothing has changed. Worst case is that the areas of disagreement have expanded and the disagreement is blowing up.

What you do next depends upon the outcome of your lunch. Whether the issues die down, or you have to escalate to senior management and if there is no senior manager around, to do it your own way as you - not him, are accountable for the results.

Choose your favorite food for lunch. Because if the meeting goes South, you at least got to enjoy the food :)

Improve this answer
5
  • 4
    "he should admit when you have a point" <-- This goes both ways of course. If you're not listening to him with equal openness, the lunch is useless.
    – jpmc26
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 17:06
  • 1
    @ojpmc26 - that's belaboring the obvious. I haven't seen anything from the OP's post that indicates to me that the OP is close minded.
    – Vietnhi Phuvan
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 19:29
  • 3
    @VietnhiPhuvan I suppose my point is that Joe probably feels like this is not the case, though, regardless of what the reality is. So if meeting to discuss the issues, it may be worth going to a little extra care to ensure Joe feels like he's being listened to and that his fears/concerns will be dealt with appropriately if they do materialize.
    – jpmc26
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 23:14
  • @jpmc26 - Personally, I wouldn't baby him - he is an adult, a professional and the head of his department. The purpose of the lunch meeting is to take care of business and clear up any misunderstandings. He tells me what he thinks, and I tell him where his thinking went off the rails. If I am right and he is wrong, let's not do any false equivalency that his opinion is as good as mine. I am having a meeting with him because I am his friend, and I don't want to tear him apart and strip him naked in front of everyone - It's bad enough that he is angry at me without just cause.
    – Vietnhi Phuvan
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 23:59
  • 2
    The thing is, as comments to the question suggest, the reason could be that Joe feels that his concerns are being ignored, and perhaps interprets that as lack of respect. Acknowledging his opinion -- even without any actual action, just with "that's a good point, we'll watch out to make sure problem X doesn't show up" or "we need to finish Y asap, but we might look into X later when we have a chance" or something of that nature can go a long way. This is of course regarding technical issues; Joe's "unacceptable" comment about scheduling is just rude and OP needs to be clear on that one.
    – laxxy
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 12:52
5

This person is a coworker, not a friend

This may not sound pleasant, but you should keep true emotions and friendship as far away from the workplace as possible.

While friendly chat and behavior are advisable in a relaxed atmosphere, when arguments start rising you should act professionaly.

Assume you're right, then be sure you really are

If he questions your work or design in front of your team, precisely and calmly state that he lacks the background to judge your decisions (please note: this should appear as a fact, not as a personal attack), and that you will note his complaint.

Try then to have a 1 on 1 chat with your coworker on what are his doubts on your choice, and try to address his concerns as best as you can. This shows him that you care about good design and workflow, while keeping the problem away from your team and others that should not be concerned.

Leave a paper trail

Every time he presses you into doing something, ask him to write an explicit request by email, while CCing your manager. Again, this should not come out as aggressive, you should just try to move responsabilities where they belong to (it's not your coworker's duty to decide on what you will work next).

Improve this answer
1
  • "This person is a coworker, not a friend. This may not sound pleasant, but you should keep true emotions and friendship as far away from the workplace as possible. While friendly chat and behavior are advisable in a relaxed atmosphere, when arguments start rising you should act professionally." - Spot on. Mixing work and pleasure can be a recipe for disaster.
    – Lumberjack
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 18:27
5

but emotionally I am too keyed up because it feels like an attack,

I am not sure how this is in your culture, but in mine the way you described it is sure an attack.

You mention that you are the head of a department and, unfortunately, this kind of situation is what these heads are responsible for handling.

First of all there is a magic wand you can use: the escalation process. Once you feel that a problem cannot be resolved between peers then

  • you state "game over" and that this will be brought to management for resolution
  • you cut short any discussion except if the other party is looking for a solution (now that it knows that it will go up).

There are some borderline psychopathic people who enjoy these kind of verbal tournaments - I am not one of them, I just usually tell once that this is my problem and not theirs and then escalate. If someone wants to go on I politely grab him or her by the neck and help to leave the room so that we can work in peace.

Improve this answer
2
  • This advice may seem like an over-reaction to some, but at the end of the day the workplace is not a appropriate venue for such distracting and disparaging behavior. I agree that, if one on one discussion yields no results, then this should be escalated to the superiors whose job it is to defuse or otherwise handle such conflict. People with these tendencies can certainly change, but I wouldn't count on it unless they learn the hard way from upper management. Moreover, it's not a personal responsibility to deal with these manners.
    – user30031
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 15:54
  • @WoJ It is not normal in our culture, we are typically very laid back. Thank you for confirming how I saw it.
    – TomQP
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 21:13
4

we are friends, and [...] the company is trying to do something important that we all strongly care about

Sounds like you're in a high-passion workplace, which can be good! But

we're talking high voices and over each other

and of course you've realized that sometimes that "passion" plays out in unproductive ways.

I understand why the scenarios you've given feel like personal attacks, but in many of these cases the solution is to not engage. Make this your mantra: Discussion is healthy, spreading knowledge is great, but you don't owe Joe an explanation.

Joe says that it is "unacceptable" that a deliverable from my department will not be ready when planned, when the head of the company has just directed us to shelve that temporarily and work on something else.

Joe is expressing his frustration that he won't have the deliverable. Maybe he's even correct. Maybe the head of the company made a dumb decision. But if Joe is owed an explanation, it won't come from you; it will come from the company head.

The cherry: Joe directly tells me what to do, "you're going to have to do X" (that is after I had explained why this is not a good idea).

Annoying, but just stay quiet. Your silence does not mean your agreement to his pronouncements.

Joe questions details of a workflow in my department (which he has never seen before) in front of junior colleagues.

This one is interesting. You need to genuinely answer the question, "why do I care?"

Is overhearing the conversation a waste of your subordinates time? Then tell Joe you'd like to move this conversation to a different place to avoid wasting their time.

Is overhearing the conversation going to confuse your subordinates? Then definitely tell him you'd like to move the conversation to avoid confusion.

Are you worried that others will get the wrong idea about you? Try to relax and realize you can't control other people's feelings toward you.

Maybe he's wrong. Maybe he's right and you should change. Maybe he's right but changing would be too costly at this point. Learn what you can.

Joe questions technical decision that I made (that he doesn't at the time have enough background to understand the reasons for) in front of the whole team.

Say out loud that the background is more complicated than he might realize, filling him in on the details is a lengthy process, and remind him that it was your decision to make. If nobody else on the team is interested, then the issue dies there. If others are interested, decide as a group when and who will participate in further discussion and table it until then.

Improve this answer
1
  • "Maybe he's right but changing would be too costly at this point." - Yes, that's it. Changing is pretty obviously a good idea, but for reasons we have discussed at some length it's not a good time to do that now. Having someone unfamiliar with that jump in and act as though our guys are idiots for not having changed it yet is uncalled for.
    – TomQP
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 16:21
3

It might be that he values your friendship in a different way than you do. Rivalry is not uncommon if both of you are in the same age. Even if he sabotages you unconsciously you might want to prepare your mind for escalation.

I was in a situation like this and I performed poorly. Arguing reasonably helps your self-esteem but not your problem. I don't know the culture of your company but if you let him boss you around you will unlikely be chosen for the next promotion. If he question your authority again you should noticeably ask him into your office (*). Otherwise someday he will be your boss and then things will get worse.

(*) What your tell him in your office doesn't matter so much, because your colleagues are not going to hear it. Just stick to the other answers.

Improve this answer
3

Good ol' Joe. In my opinion, he means well... but, well, he's mean.

The main problem here is that Joe probably thinks he is being the good guy. He probably prefaces everything with some nice compliments and then proceeds to take a full 180 degree turn into tearing down your favorite toy.

The key here is negative feedback and the issues with failing to deliver negative feedback in a constructive manner. Many people believe that it is possible to offer negative feedback in as harsh a tone as they deem fit so long as it was prefaced and suffixed with some nice words. This is simply flat out false, and often the suffix is never reached - which is to say the harsh tone drowns out the entire encounter.

I would inform Joe that giving negative feedback is a very important aspect of communicating at work, and that prefacing something mean with something nice just makes genuinely nice comments seem disingenuous. If there is something which needs to be said, just say it outright, in a polite manner, and stay focused on the subject matter.

The issue of negative feedback in general has been covered in depth by Forbes, and I would strongly urge you to google the phrase "forbes negative feedback" and read some or all of the articles authored by Forbes. The first 10 results are gems.

Improve this answer
3

I suspect you're going to have to compartmentalize a little more. Reacting emotionally to his emotionally charged accusations and attacks is only going to escalate the conflict. When he approaches you, remind yourself that it's just a business relationship, and try to ignore the emotional overtones. It takes time and practise, but is a good skill to cultivate - as is being able to act emotionally when the situation requires. The key is control and action, rather than becoming alarmed and reacting. Act, don't react.

As to the specific types of conflicts he's starting, here are some suggested methods of dealing with them:

"why would you do something so stupid" ... in front of the whole team

Again, ignore the personal attack and look at the root issue. "That's a good observation Joe, it seems at first glance that taking the path you suggest, X, Y, and Z, is better than the path I chose. I don't want to extend the length of the meeting for an in depth discussion but I have considered the other options and, in short, here are the two primary reasons I chose this direction... ... but if that's insufficient explanation I'd be happy to write an email about the decision and CC everyone to make sure I'm not going off the rails."

Joe says that it is "unacceptable" that a deliverable from my department will not be ready when planned, when the head of the company has just directed us to shelve that temporarily and work on something else.

"Thanks for the notice, I didn't realize the priority of this project had changed again and was more important than the work I'm currently doing. Let's walk over to [boss's] office and discuss prioritization so I'm on the same page as everyone else."

Joe questions details of a workflow in my department (which he has never seen before) in front of junior colleagues.

"I appreciate your interest in this! We've worked very hard on our workflow, and while we're pretty happy with the results we are always looking for ways to improve. Can I spend an hour with you tomorrow to present the workflow, the results, and get more specific feedback?"

Joe directly tells me what to do, "you're going to have to do X" (that is after I had explained why this is not a good idea).

"Thanks for the suggestion, I'll consider it."

These responses include and combine several techniques:

  • Redirection
  • Assertion of ownership/responsibility
  • Complementing the complainer
  • Assuming responsibility for the project and accepting the fallout if incorrect
  • Respecting the complainer
  • Repeating the complaint to show you are listening and understand

Now here's the hard thing I think you don't want to hear:

His reactions don't come out of thin air. While this may be partially a personality conflict, I've found that a lot of these conflicts come when someone feels that another colleague is disrespecting or devaluing them. By showing them that you are listening, that you understand the issue they are bringing up, and that you value their feedback even if you've already chosen a different path, you validate them and their voice. This will often diffuse a remarkable number of tensions that exist between employees - just validating their thoughts and experience, and respecting their intelligence and wisdom.

Yes, this is a two way street, and they should be giving you the same great treatment, but even if they don't the above should give you a lot of breathing room and comfort in your relationship with them even if they choose to continue to disparage you.

Further, this has the exceptional benefit of making sure the rest of the team sees you as the reasonable, level headed person in all these conversations, and throws a bright light on who is responsible for the open conflicts if the other person doesn't ratchet down their emotional outbursts. Right now it's possible they view you both as difficult, but if you always act reasonably and treat the other person with a great deal of respect then when things come to a head you will simply be viewed more positively.

Practise this and chances are things will be resolved over time. It takes a lot longer to cool tensions than it does to create them, so even if you could change your reactions over night, it will take weeks or even months for the general tenor of your relationship to change, but it will change and this general plan of action will benefit you throughout your career.

Improve this answer
2
  • Good advice! The only thing I'm not sure about is whether offering to write an email first is a good idea. I think it can be more effective to suggest that Joe does it: since he seems to be the more combative person, having him formulate his thoughts could work better than providing him with specific clues to object to. Plus, Joe might consider it not be worth his time, and similarly OP would waste less of his :)
    – laxxy
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 13:03
  • @AdamDavis Very good pointers, thank you. "His reactions don't come out of thin air. While this may be partially a personality conflict, I've found that a lot of these conflicts come when someone feels that another colleague is disrespecting or devaluing them." - Yes, I have started wondering if there is something like that happening here. Some of the specific things we have argued about are so dumb in and of themselves that I can't help but think there is a deeper underlying cause.
    – TomQP
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 16:29
0

I would note the issue , but not engage in discussion at the time. Then timetable a specific formal time to go through the issues raised by Joe.

It could be a deliberate tactic to catch you off guard (ambush) and also diminish you in front of other colleagues. Or it might just be a bad habit they have.

Improve this answer
0

Reply with "You've got some good points, let's have a one-to-one about it later"

Then you can privately shoot him down without it affecting public appearences. Chances are he wants to brag or have attention in front of other people, in which case he'll lose interest. He'll probably be uncomfortable constantly having these one-to-ones for trivial stuff and quickly realise you know more than him.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .