The Difficult Colleague: How Changing Your Interpretation Changes Your Reaction
In this article series, I explore how Relationship Friction and Relationship Wisdom shape career satisfaction and progression through apparently innocuous, yet critical, workplace moments.
And yet, I seem to be developing a habit of departing from that original plan 🤔
The first departure had me sharing five recognisable signs that Relationship Friction is wreaking your career.
The second elaborated on office politics and how to navigate those without being political.
My plan to cover specific career moments still feels valuable. But I write to be of service. Today, I choose to address the frequent online search for support with difficult colleague relationships.
Let’s delve into the following questions:
What makes someone a difficult colleague?
What choice do I have when dealing with someone I find difficult?
What do I do about that person I find difficult?
What makes someone a difficult colleague?
Difficult.
A word we often use.
Let’s consider two examples in a workplace context.
Same word but very different realities I would argue. See what you think.
Henry challenged your proposal in a meeting.
Multiple times.
You leave the meeting irritated. Perhaps even angry.
“Why does he always have to contradict me?” you think.
You tell another colleague about it: “Henry is so difficult.”
Your colleague replies: “Ah, I thought he had a few good points.”
Is Henry difficult or inquisitive?
You think Henry is difficult. Obstructive even.
You begin to wonder whether he is trying to undermine you.
Your colleague, instead, praises Henry’s analytical insights.
“I think Henry asked really helpful questions,” says your colleague.
Another day. A different situation — but the same word.
Over lunch in the cafeteria, you complain to another colleague about your manager Andrew.
You just had your weekly catchup with him, and you feel deflated:
“Don’t you think Andrew is sooooo difficult?”
You are looking for her to commiserate with you. To discuss coping strategies.
She replies: “I actually think he’s toxic.”
Is Andrew difficult or toxic? Or simply demanding?
You think Andrew doesn’t understand how time-consuming your work is.
You are irritated that he mentions only what is missing and fails to recognise what you produce.
Your colleague tells you a story of harassment. She seems to want you to come talk to HR with her.
In both instances, something observable happened.
Now consider the words you use to describe what happened.
And the words your two colleagues use.
They are markedly different in both examples.
These are not interchangeable descriptions.
Difficult. Helpful. Toxic. Demanding.
Each one carries a different meaning.
And each invites a different reaction.
If you see someone as difficult, you may feel the need to defend yourself.
If you perceive them as helpful, you will welcome rather than resent their comments.
If you experience them as toxic, you may conclude that you need to protect yourself or get away.
If you consider them demanding, you may reflect on how best to recalibrate their expectations.
These are all illustrations of how language shapes our response.
What happened and what we believe happened are not necessarily the same thing.
The distinction matters because we do not experience workplace events dispassionately.
We experience them through the meaning we give them.
Your teammate asks a question.
You hear criticism.
Your manager requests an update.
You hear distrust.
What you call someone is not a neutral observation.
It determines how you understand everything they do afterwards.
Behaviour is only the beginning.
Then comes interpretation. Meaning-making. Rationalisation. Emotional experience. Reaction.
We are now waist-deep in Relationship Friction:
Unnoticed relational moments that affect professional functioning and progress.
Unnoticed because interpretation happens so quickly. It lights up in your mind. It feels self-evident.
You do not notice that you have interpreted anything at all.
You experience your interpretation as though it were simply what happened.
That is why you may not notice that you find someone difficult until someone else disagrees.
Let’s return briefly to our two examples.
In the first instance, your colleague sees nothing wrong with Henry’s behaviour.
You could decide he is a blind fool and stick to your guns: Henry is difficult.
In the second instance, your colleague’s vehemence takes you completely by surprise.
Just how serious is Andrew’s behaviour? Difficult or downright toxic? (or demanding?)
She is considering going to HR to lodge a harassment complaint.
You can see how her interpretation is conditioning her behaviour.
The same mechanism is at work in you.
How are you letting your interpretation determine your behaviour?
Difficulty in relationships arises from the interaction of four parameters.
The first two parameters in particular determine everything that follows:
Behaviour + interpretation = experience.
You get to have a say about the second variable.
Interpretation is your area of agency.
Intervene at Step 2 of the process so you can influence Steps 3 and 4.
Modify your initial interpretation so you can manage your emotional reaction and be more choiceful about your response.
You get to decide how much significance you give to what happened.
Not to change the facts.
Rather to influence what happens next.
But this only works if you examine your interpretation. When you don’t, the label we give someone determines how we understand their subsequent behaviour. Over time, we stop seeing the person and start seeing our label. Our response becomes a function of that prism.
Here is a simple methodology for challenging your interpretation:
Those answers open up two further questions:
I am not suggesting that every interpretation of an observable fact is equally valid.
But I am proposing that a better interpretation creates more choice.
Let’s now look at choice.
What choice do I have when dealing with someone I find difficult?
Actually, let’s start with what you cannot choose.
You cannot choose what Henry says in a meeting.
You cannot choose how Andrew speaks to you during your 1:1’s.
Possibly even more importantly:
You cannot choose the initial thoughts and early interpretations that come to your mind.
What happens next?
Let’s return to Henry and follow his story to find out.
(Andrew’s story will serve us in the next section.)
In the Henry example, it starts with him challenging your proposal.
The following thought lights up in your mind:
“Why does he always have to contradict me?”
Other thoughts come.
Perhaps: “He is trying to undermine me.”
More thoughts follow. We can make educated guesses.
Sensations too: locked jaw, stiff neck, tight shoulders?
A knot in the pit of your stomach?
Finally the emotions: anger, shame, vengefulness?
That rabbit hole is leading nowhere good.
In fact, it is taking you somewhere you do not want to go.
What will it take for you to notice what you’re doing to yourself?
In the Henry example, the colleague’s words are a boon:
“Ah, I thought he had a few good points.”
This is your opportunity to consider whether your interpretation is the only one that fits the facts.
I know time is scarce. I know your plate is full.
Here is the choice facing you: choose the rabbit hole or choose to examine your thoughts.
If you are willing to examine your thoughts, two possibilities are available to you.
Another person or circumstance can encourage reconsideration.
An external trigger requires some luck, in the form of another person or new circumstances.
An existing disposition can also encourage reconsideration.
If you were blessed from birth with a disposition which instinctively moves you to self-reflection and the examination of your thoughts, you have what the Chinese call ‘Heaven Luck’.
Whether or not luck delivers a trigger, self-preservation is always available.
Self-preservation is also an internal trigger.
We all have it.
Self-interest is the main driver I see in my practice.
Because you do not wish to go down that rabbit hole, use your self-preservation instinct.
The rabbit hole might cost you
your working relationship with Henry
your effectiveness
your reputation
your peace of mind
your sleep
all of the above.
You cannot undo Henry’s behaviour.
You can only address your interpretation.
Here is the sequence to leverage your self-preservation instinct:
Potentially negative outcome → legitimate wish to avoid it → recognition that your current interpretation may be contributing to it → willingness to reconsider → examination of the facts.
In closing, the choice you have is whether to examine your thoughts.
For that choice to become available, you need a trigger — as we saw, either external or internal.
Without a trigger, your interpretation feels like reality. You react, the reaction produces consequences, and those consequences may reinforce your original interpretation.
You may never think to examine your thoughts.
If luck doesn’t deliver a trigger, use your self-preservation instinct.
Contemplate the rabbit hole.
Scare yourself sufficiently.
Become willing.
When you examine your thoughts, you create more choice about where you act from.
What do I do about that person I find difficult?
When you do self-examine, don’t waste time considering every possible interpretation.
Ask yourself:
Remember the story of Andrew, your manager?
Let’s use it to apply the above – the desired-outcome technique.
You are quite stunned.
You asked your colleague to join you for lunch because you wanted her sympathy after your catchup with Andrew. You hate those by now. You go in feeling belligerent. You leave them feeling deflated.
Why does Andrew only focus on what is missing and never recognise what you have produced?
So you told her that you find Andrew difficult.
You expected your colleague to agree.
Instead, she calls him toxic.
You didn’t expect that.
Is your manager difficult? Or toxic?
Your mind is reeling.
This is your trigger.
This curveball opens your mind up and you start wondering about Andrew.
This is where the desired-outcome technique comes in.
Desired outcome → emotions that would facilitate it → thoughts that would support those emotions → an interpretation that makes those thoughts possible, while respecting the facts.
What would you like from your relationship with Andrew?
To stop leaving every catchup feeling diminished.
That feeling ruins the rest of your day.
If you’re honest, it affects your home life too on that day.
Your spouse jokes about your catchup day.
It’s often the day of the week you get the house to yourself.
What emotions would help you leave your catchups in one piece?
You don’t have a coach, so you ask Gemini. Among its various suggestions, you like
What thoughts might support feeling these emotions?
You come up with those on your own 👏
What interpretation makes those thoughts possible, while respecting the facts?
“My manager is a glass half-empty kind of guy. He worries despite our good performance. He worries because that’s just how he is. That means he can only speak to people about what’s missing.”
Andrew is no longer just difficult.
He is possibly some of your thoughts about him.
You just don’t know.
But you know you. You know what you need in order to leave your catchups with him feeling good.
You have your thoughts that respect the facts.
Your thoughts now support the emotions you wish to feel.
Next time, you walk into their office, you feel those emotions.
You leave feeling good. Even a bit sorry for that person who might feel anxious without cause.
You no longer worry about your weekly catchups.
Your spouse no longer gives you a wide berth on catchup day.
We can resolve so many of our colleague relationship issues by ourselves.
Not all the time of course.
The first step is to feel better.
To feel the emotions you wish.
To sustain them with the thoughts you choose.
When you feel better, you regain cognitive bandwidth.
When a difficult relational dynamic consumes us, we find it hard to think properly.
We cannot strategize well from within the very state that is limiting our ability to strategize.
Feeling better does not mean feeling happy, positive or entirely free of distress.
It means recovering enough psychological and emotional space to return to ourselves.
Only then can you ask:
What does this situation call for?
Have a conversation?
Establish a boundary?
Ask for feedback?
Engage HR?
Look for another job?
The appropriate response depends on the specifics of the situation you find yourself in.
You know that.
Because there is no universal strategy for dealing with a difficult colleague.
You cannot hope to reliably know your colleagues’ internal states.
You cannot be sure you will read their behaviours accurately.
The only thing that you know about any workplace challenge is you.
So start with you.
Manage you.
Strategize you.
The Relationship Wisdom Pivot
This, I believe, is Relationship Wisdom:
The ability to interpret, navigate and respond to relational moments effectively.
Not simply the deployment of communication techniques.
Relationship Wisdom is also how you relate to yourself when the going gets rough.
With difficult people, Relationship Wisdom is not only the ability to examine your thoughts, but the ability to notice when examination is necessary and to trigger your willingness to undertake it.
Relationship Friction narrows our perception and responses.
Relationship Wisdom invites you to think more broadly. More fully.
It empowers you with choice through self-examination.
And from there, to choose your response.
If something in this article resonated with you, feel free to get in touch.
If this article prompted you to reflect on the politics in your office, I offer a complimentary Office Politics Audit, a five-question self-assessment so you don’t even need to talk to me 😉 You will be able to identify whether office politics is currently limiting your visibility, influence or advancement.
To explore how Relationship Wisdom can transform your career trajectory, feel free to get in touch.
#coachingforinspiration #difficultcolleague #workplaceconflict
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes someone a difficult colleague?
“Difficult” is an interpretation, not an observable fact. The same behaviour can be experienced very differently by different people. What makes someone come across as difficult to you is shaped by the meaning you give to their behaviour — and interpreting that meaning is where your agency lies.
What choice do I have when dealing with someone I find difficult?
You cannot choose another person’s behaviour nor your initial thoughts and feelings about it. What you can choose is whether to examine your thoughts. That choice requires a trigger — external or internal — and your self-preservation instinct is one of the most reliable triggers you can use.
What do I do about that person I find difficult?
Start by examining your interpretation of the other person’s behaviour. The desired-outcome technique helps you reverse-engineer a better interpretation: identify the outcome you want, the emotions that would facilitate it, the thoughts that would support those emotions, and the interpretation that makes those thoughts possible while respecting the facts.
Can I resolve difficult colleague relationships by myself?
Often, yes — at least as a first step. Reinterpreting the situation gives you back your cognitive bandwidth, which is what allows you to think clearly about what the situation actually calls for: a conversation, a boundary, feedback, or something else entirely.