Saber-toothed tigers and the workplace: managing difficult working relationships

Rationally, we can all differentiate between a sabre-tooth tiger and a ‘difficult’ coworker.

The problem is that our amygdala – our primordial, so-called ‘lizard brain’ – cannot always do the same.

So, when faced with workplace disagreements, we react in the same way we might to an ancient predator lying in ambush.

This phenomenon is referred to in psychology as an ‘amygdala hijack’ and put simply, is when our fight-or-flight response is triggered despite there being no serious threat. The modern manifestation of ‘fight or flight’? Raised voices and heated tempers, or even walking away. Whilst we can never truly beat this unconscious reaction, we can certainly manage it more effectively through the use of depersonalised language and an enhanced understanding of ourselves and others.

Managing difficult relationships is key to ensuring team success, but it is rarely as simple as it sounds in practice. Tuckman’s model of group development can help us recognise the importance of conflict in the natural progression of a team’s life cycle. As teams navigate the tumultuous ‘storming’ stage, in particular, conflict is not only inevitable, it is necessary – but only when it is approached in a positive, constructive way.

Constructive conflict through well-managed working relationships

Harvard Business Review (HBR) found that “clashes between parties are the crucibles in which creative solutions are developed and wise trade-offs among competing objectives are made”.

For teams to transition out of the initial ‘honeymoon phase’ of development, functional conflict is crucial for the progression of considered, robust solutions to complex issues.

In order to cultivate positive disagreement, however, we need to train ourselves to override the primordial part of our brains and differentiate between the sabre-tooth tiger, and the co-worker disagreeing with us.

We can help achieve this through depersonalised language and an enhanced understanding of ourselves and others, in a psychologically safe environment.

Depersonalised language – The use of a task-focused language that addresses difficult relationships in clear and professional terms allows for open communication between disagreeing parties.

To avoid misunderstandings, state the rules of engagement. Structure critical discussion to ensure that everyone is on the same page and understands where disagreements lie, and where common ground might be found.

Removing emotion and approaching disagreements as a structured process through common language can help rein in our primordial brains in heated situations.

Understand yourself, and your team – When we understand our behavioural tendencies (and how they differ from those of our coworkers), differences in opinion can be more effectively identified and addressed.

Self-awareness can be a deceptively difficult barrier to overcome, however. Research by HBR suggests that, despite 95 percent of us thinking we are self-aware, only 15 percent truly are.

We therefore need to remain cognisant of the behaviours we project in the workplace and how they are perceived by others, something which is effectively revealed by Belbin Observer Assessments.

A contribution we may see as constructive or innocuous could be taken very differently by a coworker with different behavioural tendencies, who may instead inadvertently treat our actions as a perceived ‘threat’.

When we understand our human propensities through practical tools such as Belbin, we can adapt our style to best suit the situation and elicit far more constructive debate and conflict at work.