Intensely disliking a colleague - avoid, have coaching or mediation?

I’ve never much liked having BBC Radio 4’s Nick Robinson in my kitchen first thing in the morning. He’s the smug, sneery-toned Today programme journalist who may well be as disliked by his co-presenter Emma Barnett as me.

The Times – of which I am a subscriber – reported a few weeks ago that Emma and Nick had not co-presented the BBC Radio 4 breakfast show for more than 90 days and that “before their last outing in mid December, they had shared the studio three times in more than 150 days.” This got me thinking about when it is useful to avoid versus surface the tension that exists between us and a colleague.

My occupation brings me into contact with tales of interpersonal conflict at work on a frequent basis, with coachees using session time to explore existing dynamics; reflect on the role they have played in where they are now; consider how they would like the relationship to be instead and, crucially, generating and evaluating possible routes to creating a better working relationship.

Ken Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, two psychologists in their professional prime in the 1970s, developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) to assess conflict-handling styles. “Avoidant” is one of their five styles and Emma and Nick’s adoption of it might be a well-chosen strategy. [Side note: I’ve written about the pros and cons of the other four conflict-handling styles here].

Thomas-Kilmann Five Conflict Styles

The model identifies 5 distinct conflict handling styles based on two dimensions: assertiveness (the extent to which a person seeks to satisfy their own wants) and cooperativeness (the extent to which a person seeks to satisfy the concerns of others).

Here’s a summary of the five styles:

Competing: High assertiveness, low cooperativeness. This style involves pursuing one’s own concerns at the expense of others. It’s effective in situations requiring quick, decisive action, such as emergencies or enforcing necessary but unpopular rules. It’s not ideal for maintaining long-term relationships as it can be perceived as aggressive and uninterested in the needs of others (for example, if Nick were to insist that he does the prestigious 8.10am political interview every time he’s on air with Emma*).

Collaborating: High assertiveness, high cooperativeness. This approach seeks a win-win solution by addressing the concerns of both parties. It’s ideal for resolving complex issues where mutual understanding is crucial but it takes time and effort so best reserved for things that really matter (and not who gets which studio mic).

Compromising: moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperativeness. This style aims for a middle ground solution that partially satisfies both parties. It’s useful when time is limited or when the stakes are not high. It’s unlikely to fully satisfy either party so it’s less effective for deeply personal issues. (A great tactic if there’s argument about who gets which desk in the studio: Emma gets the ‘best desk’ from 6-7.30am and Nick switches in 7.30-9am*).

Avoiding: Low assertiveness, low cooperativeness. This style involves sidestepping the conflict altogether. It can be appropriate for trivial issues or when the potential damage of confrontation outweighs the benefits. (For example, Emma not saying anything when Nick asks to be named first in the closing credits*).

Accommodating: Low assertiveness, high cooperativeness. This approach prioritises the concerns of others over one’s own. It’s effective for preserving relationships, harmony and for when you want to show generosity but could lead to resentment and passive aggressive behaviour if over-used. (This could be the approach Nick – a man who mainly drinks fizzy mineral water – takes if Emma suggests the Radio 4 team get a coffee machine for Christmas and not a Quooker. It could be a whole different conflict style on Nick’s part if he was a herbal tea fanatic*).

*All the making of my imagination.

When an avoidant approach is useful

In my coaching practice I’ve noted that the oxymoronic sounding ‘avoidant approach’ is useful when:

Interactions consistently lead to heightened emotions that leave one or both people unable to perform the way the organisation needs them to.
There is no willingness and/or resources to help the parties understand each other and find a way to work better together.
When the work can be done without the two people collaborating.
When the coachee is busy talking to head hunters and making exit plans.

Avoidance is also a useful temporary strategy that allows emotions to cool and a more constructive approach to be planned. In Emma and Nick’s case, there’s an option for them not to work together given they are part of a five-person presenting team, although I suspect this sometimes causes a scheduling headache for the production team (holidays and sickness absence for instance).

Disliking a colleague could drive your career

One upside of Emma’s dislike of Nick – if that is what’s driving their lack of working together – might be it that it fuels her career. According to a recent piece of research about learning motivation with veterinary students in Bulgaria, the biggest external motivator for learning was a desire not to fall behind students whom the participants disliked.

Mediation and Executive Coaching

If Emma and Nick did want to work out their differences, mediation is likely to be a helpful tool. Empirical research on workplace mediation effectiveness has shown that, in general, mediation has good settlement rates, varying from 60 percent to 80 percent (e.g. Kim et al. 1993; Mareschal 2005; Wood and Leon 2005; Swaab and Brett 2007; Poitras and Le Tareau 2009). More recent research exploring the long term outcomes of mediation (measured at 1 year post mediation) with Dutch co-workers shows positive outcomes (Kalter et al, 2018).

Before mediation might come executive coaching for these two exceptional bright minds. If I was working with Emma I imagine we‘d spend time exploring what she wants in her career, what she values, how she wants to be perceived by her co-presenters and broader colleague set and to what extent the behaviours she dislikes in Nick are behaviours she too displays. There’d also be some Appreciative Inquiry in our coaching time to illuminate the thoughts and behaviours that have been at play when things have been going better between her and Nick – as well as Nick’s admirable qualities. We’d also design some experiments for her to run between coaching sessions which would increase her sense of agency and hopefulness that things could get better.

As for Nick, I’d invite him to work with one on my excellent coaching colleagues – people who haven’t explicitly described him as smug and sneery. For the time being he has no chance of changing my mind as my default DAB setting is now Times Radio. Have you heard the newly appointed Times Radio Breakfast presenter-journalist, Kate Borsay? She’s terrific.