Work

You and a colleague see it differently

You and a colleague disagree about a project, a decision or how the work should be done, and it's starting to get tense. You want the best outcome, not a turf war.

What they need from you, and why

When you challenge a colleague's approach, they don't hear a point about the work. They hear a question about whether they're good at their job, and for most people being good at their job is tied up with who they are. So they defend, fast, and the actual question gets lost.

What they need is to be able to explain their thinking without having to protect their standing. Raise it privately, say you see it differently rather than that they're wrong, and ask about the pressures behind their view. That gives them room, and you usually learn something you'd missed.

The Difficult Workplace Conversations module separates competence threats from status threats. David Rock's SCARF model (2008) lists five social concerns that can put people on the defensive, status first among them, and comments that shrink someone's standing, especially in front of others, tend to provoke a fight-or-flight kind of reaction. Lee Ross named the fundamental attribution error in 1977: we explain other people's behaviour by their character and our own by our circumstances, which is why "they're just difficult" comes so easily. Curiosity gets you both out of that trap.

Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety, which the Building Workplace Relationships module draws on, suggests treating disagreement as a good sign: a colleague who challenges your idea is trusting you enough to be honest. The same goes the other way.

Understand it properly

First

Assume there's a reason behind their view that you haven't heard yet, and raise it one to one, not in front of the team.

You could say

I see this differently. Help me understand your perspective.
It says you disagree without saying they're wrong, so their competence isn't on the line and they can stay open.
There might be factors I'm not considering. Can you walk me through your thinking?
Admitting you might be missing something gives them room to explain instead of defend.
What pressures are you under on this that I might not know about?
Most of what looks like stubbornness has circumstances behind it, and asking about them gets you the real picture.
What do we both care about here?
Finding the shared goal turns two positions into one problem you can work on side by side.
I have some concerns about this approach. What am I missing?
It puts your concern on the table and still leaves the door open to being persuaded.
From now on, if something bothers me, I'll bring it to you directly first.
A commitment to raise things with them, not about them, is what rebuilds trust after a tense patch.

If it goes badly

Three ways this can turn. Read the one that happens; the others can wait.

You've said something like

I see this differently. Help me understand your perspective.

If they get defensive and start listing everything you've got wrong
I can see you're frustrated, and I may have contributed to this too. Can we come back to the decision itself?
Empathy first and a bit of ownership take the heat out of the exchange and get it back onto the problem.
If they go quiet and say "fine, do it your way"
I don't want you to just give in. If you've still got concerns, I'd rather hear them now than find out later.
Silence is often shutdown rather than agreement, and inviting the concern back in stops the better idea being lost.
If they say you're making too much of it
Maybe. Help me understand why you see it that way, and then let me say why it matters to me.
It takes their view seriously and still keeps yours on the table.

Send them to yourself, or to someone helping you.

Try not to say

"Your approach isn't working."
It questions their competence, and people get defensive fast when their ability is challenged.
"Leave this to someone with more experience."
Comments that shrink someone's standing, especially in front of others, set off a fight-or-flight kind of reaction.
"You always do this."
Attacking character instead of describing the behaviour is the pattern most likely to turn a disagreement into a fight.
Deciding they're just difficult
We explain other people's behaviour by their character and our own by our circumstances; ask about theirs first.
Going quiet and working around them
Withdrawing feels safer, but the problem doesn't get solved and the tension leaks into everything else.

Afterwards

Whatever you agreed, write it down the same day in a short message to them: who's doing what, by when, and how you'll handle it if it comes up again. If you ended with no agreement, give it a day and then suggest a time to try again, rather than taking it to your manager first. Check in after a week, briefly, on how the new arrangement is going. Don't reopen the original argument every time the project wobbles. If the pattern keeps repeating despite agreements, that is the point to involve whoever you both report to, with the specifics rather than the frustration.

Understand it properly

The words above come from these. A section is about ten minutes; the whole module is there when you have longer.

Where this comes from

Deeper Dialogues, Difficult Workplace Conversations: competence and status threats, SCARF (Rock, 2008), the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977), Gottman's four patterns at work, the PREPARE response plan, the MEDIATE framework
Deeper Dialogues, Building Workplace Relationships: psychological safety (Edmondson) and treating disagreement as a good sign

We gather and pass on what researchers and support organisations have found. This isn't a replacement for a doctor, counsellor or support service.

What they need from you, and why

You could say

If it goes badly

Share these words

Try not to say

Afterwards

Understand it properly