Episode 139: How to Build Successful and Collaborative Relationships at Work (Interview with Amy Gallo)
In this episode of the Digital HR Leaders, David is joined by Amy Gallo, contributing Editor at Harvard Business Review, and author of best-selling book, ‘'Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People)’.
This conversation will dive deep into understanding how to work effectively with those who may have different opinions or different ways of working.
Expect to learn more about:
The implications workplace conflict has on performance,
The various archetypes you find in the workplace, and how to work effectively with each one,
The impact remote and hybrid working has on conflict resolution,
How to overcome biases that influence our behaviours towards certain archetypes,
How to coach and guide managers to build better relationships and help their teams overcome conflict, and much more!
Tune in to gain valuable insight that will help you become a better manager, leader and team player in your organisation.
Enjoy!
Support from this podcast comes from Gloat. You can learn more by visiting: gloat.com
David Green: We have all been in situations where our work is affected by difficult people, whether it's a tough boss, an uncooperative colleague, or even a tricky client. But despite the challenges, learning how to work with difficult people is crucial for any professional, especially for those of us in the HR space. That's why I'm excited to have Amy Gallo as our guest today. Amy is a contributing editor at Harvard Business Review and the author of the bestselling book, Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People).
Amy is a renowned authority on workplace dynamics, and she's here to offer her insights on how we can build strong relationships with even the toughest of personalities. From understanding the different types of personality archetypes to developing strategies for managing those relationships, Amy has plenty of wisdom to share. So, without further ado, let's jump right into the conversation and explore how to make working with difficult people a little easier.
Amy, it's great to have you on the show and a bit of a role reversal, because I know you present the Women at Work podcast on HBR as well. But before we get into the conversation, could you please give listeners a brief introduction to yourself and your book, Getting Along?
Amy Gallo: Sure, thank you. And, yes, it's fun to be on this side of the mic, although I guess we're on the same side of the mic, but it's fun to be interviewed and not doing the interviewing. So I am, as you mentioned, an editor at Harvard Business Review. I have a new book out, called Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People), which focuses around eight archetypes of challenging co-workers and how to best work with them.
David Green: Brilliant, well we're looking forward to diving into at least some of those archetypes in our conversation, Amy. I'm fortunate, just like you, I get to interview lots of authors on the podcast, and I always find it really interesting to get to the story behind everyone's passion for their research topic, and I know that workplace conflict is something you've focused on for a number of years now. So, I'm curious, what inspired you to start researching and writing about friction in the workplace?
Amy Gallo: I can trace it back to one meeting actually, when I worked as a management consultant for a firm based in New York City that focused on the intersection between strategy and organisation. I remember being in this day-long meeting with a client, where we were coming up with a strategy. They had just gone through a merger and we were laying out all of the specifics, and they had all of the elements; it was a really smart strategy, they had incredibly talented people. I remember walking out of that meeting and thinking, "That's not going to work, it's actually not going to happen and they're not going to reach these goals they had set", and it had nothing to do with what we were talking about in terms of the content, it had everything to do with the ways they were interacting with one another.
As a management consultant, I had the privilege to be inside many of those strategy meetings, to be inside many different types of organisations. And what I observed is that really what made or broke success was often about how people interacted with one another. So, if you have a Board Chair and a CEO who are at odds, it could torpedo even the best, well-executed strategy. So, I became really interested in, how do we make sure that people are actually interacting in a way that's constructive, and not, which is I think where a lot of people go when they hear, "Conflict's bad for us, we need to get along", it's not actually have no conflict, but how do we have healthy friction; how do we have disagreements where we surface ideas, innovations and differences, and then work through them together.
I remember, I can still picture walking out of that meeting and thinking, "That went really well, and yet I'm not hopeful", and why is that? It was about the friction in the room.
David Green: I suppose it's healthy friction, isn't it, because if everyone's working towards the same end goal, that difference of ideas sometimes can help you get to the end goal quicker, but also many heads being better than one, you can actually discuss some of the disagreements and agree and compromise and move forward; so, that's healthy friction. Unhealthy friction is maybe when people aren't so focused on the end goals, they're maybe focused against the other individuals in the room perhaps. Is that what you mean, maybe in this particular example, and obviously I won't ask you to dig any deeper into it; is that what you sensed, that it was unhealthy friction there in that group?
Amy Gallo: Yeah, it was unhealthy friction. And actually, a lot of the behaviour I was seeing was passive-aggressive. So, there were people who were holding back, not saying what they truly thought; there were people who were trying to convey what they thought through indirect ways, making snarky comments or even rolling their eyes. But then, when they were asked directly, "How do you feel about this?" they would say, "Fine, I feel okay about it". So, it was personal conflict, relationship conflict, but it was also the lack of skills to actually surface ideas and talk them through.
David Green: And maybe, again I'm hypothesising now, but maybe a lack of psychological safety, for want of a better phrase, but people to feel that they could speak up maybe, if they weren't the most senior people in the room perhaps?
Amy Gallo: That's right. Or that they knew this strategy, this particular element of the strategy was someone's baby, and so challenging that would start to feel personal. Even though challenging that would have been the right thing ultimately for the organisation, for the company, for this leadership team, there was lots of emotion around, "What am I allowed to say; what am I not?" either because of the dynamics, the power dynamics, or because of people's personal preferences.
David Green: So, you've identified this is when the passion started. Before we move onto the next question, I'd love to hear, okay, how did you get from there to writing the book? I presume it's a journey, so I'll ask you to do it briefly, but how did you get from there to writing the book?
Amy Gallo: I'll summarise it, because it's many, many years! So, at that firm that I was working at, I started actually doing some ghost-writing for the partners of the firm who were writing some HBR articles. We together actually did a report on what we called The Informal Organisation, which was the way that work actually gets done. So, if you look at the org chart, there's that flow of power and flow of information; but then there's the real way that people actually get things done. So, we did a report on that. That got the attention of a few reporters. I started collaborating a little bit more with the editors at HBR and they asked me to start working with them.
So, I transitioned to a freelance writing career and was writing about all sorts of topics. And if you look at my articles, I've written hundreds of articles on HBR.org, they cover lots of different topics. But the thing that I kept gravitating towards over and over were these questions around conflict, difficult conversations, and I actually wrote a book that came out in 2017, which was the HBR Guide to Dealing With Conflict.
When I wrote that book, I knew that it was meant to be a straightforward, practical approach to handling conflict, but it also didn't get to the sort of personality issues that I was observing. I was still doing some consulting work and speaking work based on the book, but I was noticing there were some personality issues, patterns of behaviour that were coming up. So, even with this straightforward, practical way to deal with conflict, we still needed to know how to deal with these particular people and these patterns of behaviour that we were seeing. And that led to the book.
David Green: So, I think everyone listening to this episode today will have experienced some sort of conflict at work at one point, or multiple points very more likely. From your research, Amy, why can it be so hard for people to let go of conflict to the point that it actually does affect their performance at work?
Amy Gallo: Yeah, it's funny, as someone who writes about this all the time, speaks about it, teaches on this topic, you would think that I would have a conflict and I would say, "I know exactly what to do, I'll let go of it". But I too have trouble letting go of it, and I just think that it's our natural, physiological response to something that feels like a threat, which is what truthfully conflict and difficult conversations feel like; it's a threat to a sense of harmony, to our identity, maybe to our career.
When we feel threatened, we tend to have this stress response, where we have cortisol rushing through our body, we go into what many people know is the fight or flight response where we just don't make great choices. And our brains in those moments really react to protect ourselves, so our heartrate may go up, anything that's sort of preparing for us to run or to protect ourselves.
The problem is when it's a minor issue, like not getting your way on a project plan. Running away doesn’t help, shutting down doesn't help, and what our brain does instead is actually tells a story about that. So, "David always gets his way, I never get my way. David's arrogant, I'm humble". We start making meaning out of this negative response we're having. And because of negativity bias, which is our natural tendency to be drawn towards things that are negative versus positive, we really indulge ourselves and indulge is almost too positive of a word, but we get deep into the negative aspects of these conflicts and really focus on that.
One of my favourite statistics I've seen recently is -- this was a survey I think of 2,000 Americans about their co-workers, and 80% of them said they have a terrible co-worker. Sort of buried in this report, that was sort of the headline, was this other statistic, that 93% of people generally like their co-workers, and that is not an attention-grabbing headline, and yet it's my experience. If you ask me about the people I've worked with over the years, I would say the majority have been lovely, lovely people. Do I think more about the people who were not lovely and were in fact terrible? Absolutely; the same way I can tell you the negative comments in a performance review from 2001, but I could not tell you the positive things that were said in that performance review.
So, we get stuck in what's negative, we really start to ruminate about that, our brain doesn't help us because it's telling us these stories that tend to be polarising, tend to be very negative. So, actually letting go of the conflict requires us to overcome all of that, which isn't easy to do because again, our mind is telling us, and this is the truth, the truth is you never get your way, the truth is your co-worker is arrogant, your co-worker's a pessimist or a know-it-all. And so, you just get stuck in that version of the story and it can be hard to detach from the conflict or the difficult conversation.
David Green: Yeah, it's funny, as you were talking there, Amy, I was thinking back to my own experience and thinking, "Yeah, negative experiences just tend to resonate deeper within you, and maybe that's why you remember them". But you're right. I could probably count on one hand, maybe two hands because of my age, but I could probably count on one hand or two hands the number of people that I've genuinely not liked that I've worked with over my career. But there's hundreds of people, or probably even more people that I've worked with that I really work. So, yeah, it's really interesting actually, isn't it? It's a shame that we're wired to remember the negative more than the positive.
Amy Gallo: It is, and it's meant to protect us. We're attuned to the negative, because as humans, we've evolved to scan for threats and then respond to those threats; it's kept us safe. And yet, the problem is we have to recognise that's what's happening. You and I have a snarky email exchange, I have to remember, "Okay, my brain's going to tell me a story about how David's completely wrong and I'm completely right, and I should just write back to him and tell him everything he's ever done wrong". And then I have to go, "Okay, wait, hold on here. That's my brain protecting me. What's a more effective way of dealing with this; what else could be going on for David? What's going on for me; am I tired; am I not fed; am I under-slept; is that causing me to react more strongly to what's happening here? And, what's my goal; what do I actually want out of this email exchange?"
Oftentimes, my goal, if I'm in that mental hijack, is to prove I'm right and prove you're wrong. So, that's not helpful, right, "But what is it actually I need? Well, I need David to agree to this figure in the budget so that we can move forward" or, "I need him to agree that we're going to involve other people in this decision", whatever it is. And then it's, "Okay, well how do I achieve that goal?" and it's a much more measured response. It requires a lot of self-control, a lot of self-awareness. But ultimately, it's what helps us make better decisions and have better relationships at work.
David Green: In your book, Getting Along, you share a lot of practical strategies to help readers navigate stressful situations in the workplace. As you've already highlighted, you identify eight archetypes of people and then by understanding these different archetypes and their unique communication styles, without putting people into a box, of course, you can use these to approach difficult conversations more effectively.
You might want to just list the eight archetypes and I'd love to go into all eight, but I just don't think we're going to have the time; but then maybe to pick three that you particularly find in the workplace, and the tactics maybe listeners can follow to work more effectively with each of these archetypes.
Amy Gallo: Sure, yeah, and you said something, "Without putting people in a box". I do want to just note, because I realise using these archetypes risks encouraging people to use labels, and there is a temptation to go through. And when I list the archetypes, I'm sure you'll be thinking, "Oh, that's so-and-so, and that's so-and-so". It's tempting to label them and dismiss them as a result, like, "Oh, that passive-aggressive peer".
But really, these are meant to be diagnostic for you; they're not meant to be part of the discussion with your colleague, "Well, you fall into the political operator archetype". They're really meant to help you find the specific advice you need because difficult people can't be lumped into one big category and give generic advice that's going to work in all cases. One of my goals with the book is to really give people the specific advice that they need.
So, I'll list the archetypes: insecure boss; pessimist; victim, which is a type of pessimist or flavour of pessimist; passive-aggressive peer; the know-it-all; the biased co-worker; the tormentor, which is someone who is meant to be a mentor, but actually does quite the opposite, so undermines you.
David Green: I don't like the sound of them!
Amy Gallo: No, they're my least favourite, I'll be honest. And then there's the political operator. So, let's actually start with the biased co-worker, because I think that's one that I hear about a lot and I think a lot of people really struggle with, "How do I deal with someone who makes inappropriate comments or commits microaggressions towards me; or, clearly has some outdated beliefs about women or people of colour; what do I do about that in the workplace?"
A couple of tips I'll share is that, one, I think there is a big hesitancy to speak up about them. A lot of us feel it's uncomfortable or we don't want to shame the other person, or we're not even sure that what we heard is correct. But I think really weighing the costs and benefits of speaking up and staying silent, we don't often think about what are the risks of inaction, what are the risks of not speaking up. Especially if you are in a position of power, you have a responsibility to address these comments, because it affects how people show up at work, whether it feels like a safe environment, whether people can bring their full selves to work.
But then specifically when you hear those comments, and I would say this is true if you're on the receiving end, but even more so if you're observing, if you're a bystander, really ask questions that encourage that person to reflect on what they said and to clear up any misunderstanding. So, you might even say, "What did you mean by that comment?" or, "I see that differently, could you explain exactly your intention with saying that?" just trying to get them to take a moment to reflect.
Then, because we know from research that we tend to hesitate when we are confronted with bias or an uncomfortable situation at work, it can be helpful to have a few phrases that you have in your back pocket, something like, "It's disrespectful to say X" or, "That comment seems to be based on a stereotype", anything that you can calmly call it out. You might even be as direct as to say, "I prefer you not say that around me again". These can feel confrontational, I want to acknowledge that, but it's also helpful if you have those and can deliver them in a calm and direct way, it shows that person that you're not going to tolerate that behaviour.
David Green: What would the second one be?
Amy Gallo: Let's go to the pessimist. This is one I hear a lot about of, "Oh, I work with Chicken Little". Actually, is that a universal, international story?
David Green: Chicken Little, they made a film, yeah.
Amy Gallo: Yeah, "The sky is falling". I didn't know if that was an American trope. But Chicken Little, the person who's always saying these negative things are happening, "This will never work, we've tried that before", we all have worked with that person. And I think one of the things to keep in mind is they actually play a really important role, especially in a lot of organisations, and I actually hear from a lot of my UK colleagues that this is very common in the UK, that there's this sort of insistence on positivity; some people will call it "toxic positivity", which is everything has to just, "That will work, that's great, let's try it, let's see", even if underneath it all, everyone's like, "I have some concerns, there might be some risks, I'm worried about…" They're just doing you a favour by pointing out those risks and they're even going against the culture, the normative culture, which can be really challenging to do.
That said, it can be really draining to work with someone who is just constantly pointing out the negative. And I think you do want to take advantage of the skill, encourage them to point out the risks, but acknowledge that's what you're doing. It's like, "You're really good at pointing out the risks, let us know what you see here that we might be missing"; give them a role to play. You also want to engage with their ideas. It could be really easy to dismiss them and to polarise and be like, "I'm positive, they're negative; I'm an optimist, they're a pessimist", but to engage with the ideas.
You might even say something like, "You know, there's part of me that agrees with you that this might not work and another part of me that thinks it will, so let's tease out both perspectives", so that way it doesn't become a tug-of-war, but it becomes a collaboration to get to the best answer. Also, I think it helps, you have to remember that pessimists think optimists are morons, they're just not seeing things clearly, they're just foolish.
So, you don't want to immediately dismiss their ideas like, "Oh, God, you're always negative" or, "Of course you would think that", but to acknowledge, "I can see why you're frustrated, I can see why you're feeling negatively about this". And then you want to give them a little bit of agency, "Do you think there's anything we can do to mitigate those concerns?" or, "What have we missed; what do you want us to understand that we haven't seen yet or that we haven't understood yet?" Just giving them some power can help, while not completely indulging in the negativity that they're sharing.
David Green: Great, like that one, Amy. So, the third archetype?
Amy Gallo: So, this is the one that I get asked about all the time. Do you actually want to guess which one of the ones I said, because it's the one I can guarantee whenever I'm doing a talk or a workshop, I can guarantee the first or the second question will be about this archetype; do you have a guess?
David Green: Is it the passive-aggressive?
Amy Gallo: Yes, absolutely, that's right. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with. I've actually heard about it described as shadowboxing; you're trying to land something with this other person and they're just evading, evading. There are lots of reasons that people act passive-aggressively, and most of the research indicates that none of them set out to actually be -- no one goes home and was like, "Wow, I was really passive-aggressive at work today, that worked out really well for me". Instead, they think they're being petty or it's not a safe space to say exactly what you think, or they're afraid of rejection or failure. So, it can be really frustrating.
But there are some tactics that have shown to work. One is to try to engage with the underlying idea. So, maybe they say something that's wrapped in this snarky response or comment, or they will waffle, like they'll say they think this, but once you start to dig into it they're like, "Oh, no, I don't really think that", even though you can tell they do. And if you can engage with the underlying message saying, "I think I hear what you're saying is, you don't think this will work unless we add more resources to the team; is that right?" and then you can do what's called "hypothesis testing". So, you share what you think they're saying, what your hunch is, and then ask them, "Does that hold true?"
Now, sometimes the passive-aggressive person will be like, "No, that's not what I'm saying, no, I didn't mean…" and you have to accept that at some point, you may not actually get a real response from them; they may be genuinely afraid or unwilling to be straightforward, but at least now you've indicated to them that you're paying attention, and anything you can do to make it feel safe for them, so even saying things like, "I want to hear your true opinion. I know it may not always be what I want to hear, but I want to actually know what you think", that can be really helpful.
Then, one other tactic I'll share, and I think this is true for any of the archetypes, is try to set norms on your team for how you all are going to interact. So, one of the classic passive-aggressive moves is to agree to do something in a meeting that they clearly don't want to do, and then they just never do it. So, you might agree as a team, we will follow through on our commitments we make in a meeting; or, you might agree that silence in a meeting should not be interpreted as agreement or as assent, so that if people don't say anything, you're not assuming that they're onboard, but you actually ask individually, "Are we all onboard, yes, no?" and allow people that moment to actually express what they think.
Again, passive-aggressive is one I get asked a lot about, because I think people experience it a lot with their co-workers, but I think it's also one that's really, really hard to address. And all of what I've just shared sometimes works, and I'll be quite honest, sometimes doesn't, and then you have to try other tactics to try to get them to show up, say what they actually think and feel.
David Green: Well, with each of those three, the biased co-worker, the pessimist and the passive-aggressive, if what you've just guided us through, Amy, works seven times out of ten, then that's probably better than where people are at the moment perhaps with that, so really good. And obviously in the book, you dig in a lot deeper into those three archetypes, and obviously the other five that we listed at the start as well.
Amy Gallo: There's also a chapter if none of that works. So, those three out of ten times that it doesn't work, what do you do instead? I've read too many books that promise solutions, that don't actually; you're like, "This doesn't work", once you've taken it out of the book into the real world, out of the theoretical, and I really didn't want to do that with this book, I really wanted to acknowledge that some of this advice may not work in all circumstances, and there are hopefully other things you can do instead if that comes to being.
David Green: Are there certain archetypes that clash more than others?
Amy Gallo: Certainly the insecure boss does not play well with most of these other archetypes, in particular the passive-aggressive, or the know-it-all, because it sort of triggers them to be more insecure. Certainly the tormentor doesn't deal well with a know-it-all, someone who they feel might be threatening to them; or the political operator. The know-it-all and the political operator would certainly butt heads. It's fun to think about the different mixes of how this all plays out.
But one of the things I've learned, in both researching for the book, but also in talking to people about the work, is that every situation is truly unique. It's not like I hear about a co-worker, I'm like, "That sounds like so-and-so"; they're all genuinely unique, because maybe the core pattern of behaviour is pessimism, but they've got some victim mixed in, some passive-aggressive mixed in, and that's why I really think of all of the tactics that I share as a sort of menu that you get to choose from. You're going to try them out, and you're going to experiment, you're going to see what works, what doesn't, and then try with some more things.
Here's the other fun thing about dealing with difficult people, is that sometimes a tactic works three times and then it stops working and you're like, "What? My favourite tactic, it's not working!" So then you have to go find something else, "Okay, well in this circumstance, what if I tried this?" You really have to put on that scientist mindset as you approach all of these interactions.
David Green: Obviously, and I know you've been writing about it a lot in Harvard Business Review over the last three years now, obviously since the pandemic, we've been moving much more to a world of hybrid working, most organisations; there are a couple of outliers of course. I suppose a hypothesis I've got is that having effective conversations around conflict is perhaps harder than it was when we were face-to-face and you could read people's body language. It's probably harder to read body language like this over video. What are your thoughts on this, and how does this change, maybe, or how does it change what we've spoken about so far; or, what other considerations do we need to think about?
Amy Gallo: Researchers who look at conflict in remote versus in-person, certainly there are so many downsides; as you said, the lack of visual cues. There's also the lack of context, so you show up in this square on the screen, I don't know what's going on around you, I don't know if there's going be a huge storm, I don't know if you have kids in the other room; you're missing the shared context.
David Green: All of the above!
Amy Gallo: Right, exactly, that's right! So, I don't have that context. And the other thing, and I haven't seen much research on this, so this is really just my personal observation, and also from talking to people for the book, which I wrote during the pandemic, which is that these mediums in which we're interacting, they don't encourage empathy. I get on, I'm a little box on the screen, you're a little box on the screen, and the minute we're done, I just close the screen; I don't have to think about you if I don't want to. So, I think there's a lot of downsides to trying to have difficult conversations in this way.
One of the biggest is that we might just avoid it because it's a pain, setting up a Zoom call, trying to read your body language, trying to understand what's going on. That's a lot, that's a high hurdle to overcome to just have a challenging conversation. So, I think a lot of us just avoid it. But what can help, I think, is remembering that without that context, without the non-verbal cues, and even the way you hear our voices on these mediums is not very clear, you're not picking up the same way you would if you were in person with them, so remember since you're missing all of that, it's to make clear what your intention is because that's what we're constantly trying to figure out, "Was David trying to trick me with that question? Does he actually care about this project?" We're constantly trying to sense that, it's to state those intentions upfront.
So, if you're going to have a difficult conversation over Zoom, or even by phone instead of in-person, it's to say, "My intention with this conversation is to get us on the same page so that we can move forward" or, "My intention with this conversation is to make sure we have a strong working relationship since we have to work so closely over the next six months". Just stating that sometimes can help lessen the work the other person's doing to try to sort out what your motivation is. So, that's one thing.
The other is, try to choose a medium that's as hi-fidelity as possible. I've actually found, and I've heard other experts talk about this too, that a phone call is sometimes easier for a challenging conversation than Zoom. The other awkward things about these video conversations is you're looking each other in the eye the entire time, which is not how you interact with someone in-person, especially when it's awkward. If you or eye were in a room together, we'd be looking at the ceiling, we'd be looking at our hands, but Zoom creates this situation where we're just looking; it feels very confrontational. And so, a phone call, you can pick up on different cues in their tone of voice, and it takes some of the pressure down.
That's one of the things that I've been trying to do is like, "Oh, this is going to be challenging. Hey, can I give you a call?" which truthfully might be very countercultural, depending on your age, depending on the organisation; but I always say, "Who cares?" If it's countercultural, great, you've emphasised how important this conversation is to you by choosing to do something that others maybe wouldn't. So, thinking about the medium, stating your intention, and just remember you don't have the full context.
I tell this story in the book of someone who thought their colleague was rolling their eyes at them on a Zoom call, and they were so mad and it led to this big rift between them. They later found out that he was just looking up at a clock that was right above his computer and he was trying to do it quickly so he didn't seem inattentive, and he didn't want to be late to pick up his kid from school, and that was the entire thing. He was not rolling his eyes, he was not mad, he was focused because he was worried and he was looking up, so it looked like he was made and it looked like he was rolling his eyes. So, just remember that you don't have the full context for what's going on.
David Green: So, Amy, we've talked a little bit about the biased co-worker, but I guess we all, to a greater or lesser degree, have biases, whether they're conscious or unconscious, that we may have towards certain people and that influences the way that we perceive their behaviour, and then the tactics that we use to react to their behaviour. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.
Amy Gallo: Yeah, and actually I know the phrase "difficult people" is on the cover of my book, but it's something I feel a little bit uncomfortable with, to be honest, because I think oftentimes we label someone as difficult because they're different than us and because of our own biases. So, when my colleague shows up five minutes late to a meeting, I immediately start telling myself a story about how they don't care about what we're covering, that they're disrespectful, or maybe they're disorganised. You just immediately start going into what we call the "fundamental attribution" area, which is that we attribute their mistakes or missteps as part of who they are, as opposed to the circumstances of, there was a lot of traffic in this meeting, or the last meeting they were in ran over, and immediately to assume something's wrong with you, as opposed to giving you the benefit of the doubt of the circumstances. So, that's one way.
The other is that there's a bias called "affinity bias", which is we're drawn to and prefer to usually spend time with people who are like us; maybe they look like us, maybe they sound like us, maybe they have the same background as us. And so, when someone isn't like us, again we might quickly draw for that difficult label, and we have to really watch out for that because it's not only unfair but it's counterproductive. If we can only work with people who are like us, we're going to really hold back ourselves and our career and our organisations.
The other bias that's really helpful, and this goes back to our conversation earlier about why we can't let conflict go, is there's "confirmation bias", which is as soon as I decide, you know, you're passive-aggressive, I'm going to start collecting evidence for how true that is. And so, this is the other danger of the labels and using these archetypes as labels, is that we just start creating a story in which you are a jerk and I'm not, and I see it play out over and over because that's the lens on which I view it.
So, knowing those biases is helpful and really watching out, how could bias be playing a role here, "If this person looked more like me and we had these things in common, would I think the same things about them? Would I be assuming they were difficult if they were a white man versus a black woman?" It's just important to question yourself and your interpretation of their behaviour through those biases and try and challenge yourself to see it more clearly, more fairly.
David Green: Now, the majority of the listeners to our podcast are working in HR, they're HR leaders, HR professionals, people analytics professionals in particular. What advice could you give them, given that HR is usually brought in to intermediate if there is a conflict; that's a really bad conflict, admittedly. But if we think about the learning programmes and the coaching that a lot of the time emanates from HR, what advice could you give to them to coach and guide managers and teams to overcome conflict and build better relationships?
Amy Gallo: I think putting into practice a lot of what we've talked about so far, especially when someone comes to you and says, "I'm having a problem with so-and-so", you may be tempted to intervene. I think doing so sometimes is required or necessary, but more often than not you want people to solve problems themselves at the lowest level possible, because it gives them the skills to do it again. Again, acknowledging that conflict is a normal and inevitable part of working with other human beings is important. So, rather than saying, "Oh gosh, you're having this conflict", just normalise it, say, "Yeah, sometimes these things happen". I think that's really important right from the start.
The other is there's actually a four-step framework from my first book, the HBR Guide to Dealing With Conflict, that I think is a really good coaching tool, and I'll go through those quickly. Number one is encouraging the person to think about the other person. So, the person they're having trouble with, ask them, "What do you think could be going on for them; what do you think they care most about? What would be a rational reason for their behaviour or their reaction?"
Then the second step is to try to figure out what's the conflict truly about, because oftentimes we assume it's a personality clash or we just don't get along, but what's really underlying that issue? Is it that you don't agree on the goal of this project; is it that you agree on the goal but you don't agree on the process for how to accomplish it; is there a power struggle happening? Can you really encourage the person to see what is actually at stake, and it may be multiple things, but to thread those out will then help them figure out how to address it.
The third step is to think about, "What's your goal?" and ask them, "What's your goal here; what do you want to achieve?" and get them to be really clear. And if they have a goal like, "I wanted to show that I'm right and they're wrong", most people won't admit that; but if they do, say, "Well, what else is your goal?" and encourage them to think about a shared goal with the other person, because that can really help put people on the same page.
Then the fourth step is taking all of that, what you know about the other person and their motivation, what you're actually disagreeing about, and what your goal is, and then deciding how to proceed. Sometimes, that's sitting down and hashing it out; sometimes, that's letting it go, see what happens instead if you actually don't do anything; and sometimes that's handling it indirectly, bringing in a third person who is trusted by both of you, not to mediate but to weigh in and maybe help break up the tug-of-war you've gotten yourself into.
I use that tool for myself. I do that four-step framework when I'm encountering a conflict. But I think it's really useful for HR folks to use as a coaching tool as you're trying to get others to resolve their own conflicts.
David Green: Really good advice, Amy, and certainly I suggest that everyone gets the book, Getting Along, because I think it will definitely help workplace harmony and lead to better outcomes as well. Staying with HR, and this is the question we're asking everyone on this series of the podcast, and I know that HBR features so much now topics that are really, really resonant to HR as well, what do you think HR leaders need to be thinking about most in the next, say 12 to 24 months?
Amy Gallo: Well, you're going to laugh because I'm very biased about what I think people should be concerned about, but I honestly think the last few years, and certainly the next 12, 24 months, there's going to be a lot of difficult conversations, whether that's about where we work, what hybrid work looks like, what flexibility we give people, whether that's about layoffs or economic uncertainty or budget cuts, or about DEI issues. I mean, I can't tell you how many people have been reaching out to me to say, "We're struggling to have good conversations, productive conversations about equity and inclusion in our organisation; how do we do that?"
So, I think really honing in on what's the culture, what's the environment we want to create around having these difficult conversations; what are the skills that our people need, particularly our leaders, because they're often going to set the tone for how these conversations go. To me, that's really the most important thing that your listeners can really focus on right now, and it's a fundamental skill that I think we expect that most of us should know how to do, but it's amazing how little we're given in terms of training or teaching around how to have a fight, how do you actually have a conflict, move on, get through it? And even if you both don't get what you need, continue to be in a relationship with each other and interact in positive ways.
For me, that's the big thing. There's going to be a lot -- I mean, if we look forward and I think about what we are publishing in HBR, there's going to be a lot of turmoil, particularly around the economy and politics in the next year, and how do you make sure that you, yourself and the people who you support are equipped with the skills to navigate that.
David Green: And things are moving so fast, and they're not likely to slow down. I think if you add the pandemic to economic uncertainty, obviously the war in Ukraine, now there's wars elsewhere in the world, so maybe my bias is that, "Oh, there's a war in Europe", so I think of that being bigger than elsewhere in the world, and that's not true, of course it's not; but there's so much going on. And then, when you add that to the fourth Industrial Revolution as well and organisations are already changing massively anyway, that's a lot for people to deal with, whether you're a leader, whether you're an HR professional, whether you're an employee. So I guess, as you said, that probably leads to more conflict?
Amy Gallo: And if you think about, let's take it back to the very beginning where I talked about why I got into this work, if you think about the way in which we're going to navigate those uncertainties or make decisions, it is all in conversation with others. And if we're not able to get along and have constructive, but challenging conversations, we're not going to get through it, our teams aren't going to get through it, our organisations aren't going to get through it. And so, it's imperative that we really build these skills and practice them, and acknowledge they're hard, we're going to mess up. But then we get up, get back and do it again.
David Green: Well, Amy, thank you so much for being a guest on the Digital HR Leaders podcast, I've really enjoyed our conversation. I've certainly learnt a lot and I'm sure people listening to this will as well. How can listeners find you on social media, stay in touch with you, find out more about Getting Along?
Amy Gallo: So, you can go to my website, it's probably the easiest place to find me, which is amyegallo.com. You can buy my book there, you can sign up for my newsletter, you can find links to my articles. If you are interested in my writing for HBR, you can go to hbr.org and search my name, and as I mentioned earlier, there's hundreds of articles there. But my book, Getting Along, is available almost anywhere you'd get books, and yeah, I love to hear from people who've read it or are interested in these topics, so I definitely encourage people to reach out and stay in touch.
David Green: Brilliant. And are you a frequent user of things like LinkedIn and Twitter?
Amy Gallo: Yeah, I'm on LinkedIn, you can search for me there, and then I'm on Twitter for the moment, we'll see where that goes. My handle there, and on Instagram too, is @amyegallo.
David Green: Well, Amy, thank you very much, as I said, for being a guest, really enjoyed the conversation and look forward to hearing more about your work.
Amy Gallo: Thank you so much, David, this has been really fun, I appreciate it.