by Rick Brenner
Animosity between two people at work is often attributed to "personality clashes." While sometimes people can't get along, animosity can also be a tool for accomplishing strictly political ends. Here's a short catalog of some of its uses.
The causes of animosity between two people might be outside the awareness of bystanders, or even outside the awareness of either party or both. But animosity usually has roots somewhere. One common explanation for animosity between two people — overused, I believe — is a "personality clash."
But animosity can arise from other sources. For example, it can be structural, arising when the people involved represent groups that are in a state of toxic conflict. And animosity can be a tactic — created by one or both parties, who might use animosity to achieve an undisclosed goal.
A gray wolf. Most gray wolves are affiliated with a pack, which patrols and maintains a marked territory, defending it from neighboring packs and unaffiliated wolves. To a pack, territory means food and den sites — in short, survival. Territory violations by members of neighboring packs and unaffiliated animals are seen as threats to survival, and often result in fights to the death. This mechanism helps ensure a healthy balance between predator and prey populations. More about the gray wolf from the Wisconsin Department of natural Resources.
In the workplace, animosity can serve a similar function. When a particular organization becomes too crowded with people of similar ambitions, contention can result in displacement of some to other organizations. Although animosity can serve such a constructive role, the price in terms of lost productivity and depressed morale can be very high. Unlike the gray wolf, humans are capable of devising alternative mechanisms perhaps better suited to distributing talent. Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
When animosity is a tactic, addressing it as anything else probably won't work. Here's a little catalog of animosity patterns I've seen people use. It might help you recognize when animosity is a tactic.
- The indirect target
- Sometimes the actual target of the operator isn't obvious. For example, if the actual target is a team lead, and the operator hopes to displace the team lead, the operator might target someone else to create dissension, providing evidence that the team lead is ineffective. This tactic works better when the dissension created doesn't involve the team lead directly.
- Feet of clay
- Disrupting a team's social structure can be one route to becoming a dominant figure on a team. The disrupter gradually antagonizes the current dominant figure, intending to force what appear to be unforced errors. Flustered, dominant figures under such attack might commit blunders serious enough to compromise their positions, and the displacement is then complete. This approach is more effective when the current dominant figure champions noble, higher ideals.
- Some believe that all their relationships must be pleasant and cheerful. Their willingness to bend is what many would term "beyond reasonable" or even "self-destructive." They're easy targets for those who use animosity as a tactic. By creating tension in the relationship, the operator can use it for all manner of workplace favors, such as freeing up assignments or obtaining political support for their endeavors.
- Discrediting the competition
- Some operators When animosity is a tactic,
addressing it as anything
else probably won't workuse animosity to discredit potential competitors. By creating difficulty between the competitor and those around him or her, they create the impression that the competitor is difficult to work with. This approach is more effective if the operator is especially productive and ingratiating to the shared superior. In some cases, the operator actually becomes the superior's close confidant.
One more pattern of animosity is particularly troubling. It could be called "Just for kicks." There are those who derive satisfaction or comfort from animosity in the atmosphere. Perhaps they're unaware of what they're doing, but that matters little to those around them. If you find someone like this in your world, it's probably best to show him or her the way out, or find a way out for yourself. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenfWkJYbqpPsMDhdyXner@ChaceNOoMaTCBzzitSLHoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email
, or by Web form
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful,
and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive
of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout,
as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in,
anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- See No Evil
- When teams share information among themselves, they have their best opportunity to reach peak performance. And when some information is withheld within an elite group, the team faces unique risks.
- Recalcitrant Collaborators
- Much of the work we do happens outside the context of a team. We collaborate with people in other departments, other divisions, and other companies. When these collaborators are reluctant, resistive, or recalcitrant, what can we do?
- Political Framing: Strategies
- In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some strategies framers use.
- Unwanted Hugs from Strangers
- Some of us have roles at work that expose us to unwanted hugs from people we don't know. After a while, this experience can be far worse than merely annoying. How can we deal with unwanted hugs from strangers?
- Meta-Debate at Work
- Workplace discussions sometimes take the form of informal debate, in which parties who initially have different perspectives try to arrive at a shared perspective. Meta-debate is one way things can go wrong.
See also Conflict Management, Emotions at Work and Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming Issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Ethical Debate at Work: Part I
- When we decide issues at work on any basis other than the merits, we elevate the chances of making bad decisions. Here are some guidelines for ethical debate. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Ethical Debate at Work: Part II
- Outcomes of debates at work sometimes favor one party, not only at the expense of the other or others, but also at the expense of the organization. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for steering debates toward wise outcomes. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates.
Contact Rick for details at rbrennQEHSsISQaSXdwgCner@ChacyTElknLFsFDCOtINoCanyon.com
or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout
are available in six ebooks:
Reprinting this article
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline?
Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- Ten Project Management Fallacies: The Power of Avoiding Hazards
- Most of what we know about managing projects is useful and effective, but some of what we know "just ain't so." Identifying the fallacies of project management reduces risk and enhances your ability to complete projects successfully. Even more important, avoiding these traps can demonstrate the value and power of the project management profession in general, and your personal capabilities in particular. In this program we describe ten of these beliefs. There are almost certainly many more, but these ten are a good start. We'll explore the situations where these fallacies are most likely to expose projects to risk, and suggest techniques for avoiding them. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program:
- Managing in Fluid Environments
- Most people now work in environments that can best be characterized as fluid, because they're subject to continual change. We never know what's coming next. In such environments, managing — teams, projects, groups, departments, or the enterprise — often entails moving from surprise to surprise while somehow staying almost on track. It's a nerve-wracking existence. This program provides numerous tools that help managers who work in fluid environments. Read more about this program. Here are some upcoming dates for this program:
- The Race to the South Pole: The Organizational Politics of Risk Management
- On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in risk management, its application to organizational efforts, and how workplace politics enters the mix. A fascinating and refreshing look at risk management from the vantage point of history and workplace politics. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program: