Two Employees Aren't Getting Along. Now You're in the Middle.

It usually starts with something small. One employee thinks another isn't pulling their weight. Someone makes a comment in a meeting that doesn't sit well. An email comes across a little sharper than intended. Or perhaps two people simply have different ways of working, and neither particularly appreciates the other's approach.

At first, you barely notice. Then one of them stops by your office and asks if you have a minute.

You know that question. It rarely takes a minute.

"Can I talk to you about something? I'm really having a hard time working with Jennifer."

You listen. The employee explains what happened, why it's frustrating, and how long it's been going on. You ask a few questions, offer some advice, and assume you've handled it.

Twenty minutes later, Jennifer appears at your door.

"Can I talk to you about something? I'm having a problem with Mark."

Wonderful. You now have season tickets to a disagreement you didn't even know existed yesterday.

Welcome to management.

The temptation is to hear both sides, determine who's right, and settle the dispute. After all, you're the manager. Solving problems is part of your job.

But employee conflict is one of those situations where solving the problem for people can sometimes prevent them from learning how to solve problems with each other.

And if you're not careful, you'll become the permanent referee for every disagreement on your team.

Conflict Is Normal. How People Handle It Matters.

Let's begin with something managers occasionally forget: people can disagree and still be excellent employees.

In fact, you should expect disagreement on a healthy team. People have different personalities, experiences, communication preferences, standards, and opinions about how work should get done. One employee wants everything documented. Another prefers a quick conversation. One moves fast and figures things out along the way. Another wants to think through every detail before making a decision.

Neither approach is necessarily wrong. But put those two people on the same project with a tight deadline, and you may find yourself wondering whether the company offers mediation as an employee benefit.

Managers sometimes interpret conflict as evidence that something is wrong with the team. That's not always true. Some disagreements are productive. A team where everyone agrees about everything may be a team where people have stopped sharing what they actually think.

The concern begins when disagreement turns personal, communication breaks down, or the conflict starts affecting performance, customers, or other employees.

That's when the manager has a responsibility to act.

The first question, however, isn't necessarily, "How do I get these two people to get along?"

A better question is, "What's actually happening here, and what does the team need from me?"

Don't Become the Messenger

One of the easiest mistakes a new manager can make is allowing two employees to communicate through them.

Mark tells you Jennifer never shares information on time. You talk to Jennifer. Jennifer explains that Mark never gives her enough notice. You return to Mark and explain Jennifer's position. Mark disagrees and provides three additional examples. You go back to Jennifer.

Congratulations. You've become the office postal service, except nobody appreciates the delivery.

This approach may temporarily reduce tension because the employees no longer have to talk directly. Unfortunately, it also teaches them that when they have a problem with a coworker, the manager will handle the uncomfortable conversation.

Before long, you become responsible for maintaining relationships that should be maintained by the people involved.

There are situations where a manager must intervene directly, particularly when the behavior involves harassment, discrimination, threats, retaliation, bullying, or other serious misconduct. Those concerns require appropriate organizational procedures and, when necessary, HR involvement.

But when the issue is an ordinary workplace disagreement, start by determining whether the employees have actually spoken to each other.

You might ask:

"Have you talked with Jennifer about what's bothering you?"

If the answer is no, follow with:

"What would make that conversation difficult, and how can I help you prepare for it?"

You're acknowledging the concern while encouraging the employee to take responsibility for the relationship.

If they've already tried and the conversation went poorly, or if the conflict is affecting the team, you may need to become more involved.

The goal is to provide the right amount of help without becoming the only person capable of resolving the issue.

Get Curious Before You Choose a Side

Here's where managers can get themselves into trouble.

The first employee to tell you about a problem often has an advantage. You hear their story, understand their frustration, and begin forming an opinion before you've heard anything from the other person.

And some employees are very good storytellers.

They arrive with dates, examples, emails, screenshots, and possibly a presentation they've been preparing since Thursday.

By the time they're finished, you're ready to call Jennifer into your office and ask what on earth she's been doing.

Slow down.

You've heard one person's experience. You haven't necessarily established what happened.

In Crucial Conversations, Kerry Patterson and his coauthors explore what happens when people face situations involving high stakes, differing opinions, and strong emotions. One particularly useful idea is that people create stories about what other people's actions mean, often before they have all the facts.

Consider this example.

Jennifer doesn't respond to Mark's email for two days.

That's an observable fact.

Mark concludes that Jennifer doesn't respect him and is deliberately making his job harder.

That's an interpretation.

Jennifer may be ignoring him. She may also be overwhelmed, waiting on information, or unaware that he needs an immediate response.

The distinction matters because employees often arrive in your office presenting interpretations as facts.

"She doesn't respect me."

"He always tries to make me look bad."

"She thinks her work is more important than mine."

Rather than accepting those conclusions, ask employees to describe specific behaviors.

"Tell me exactly what happened."

"What did the person say or do?"

"What impact did that have on your work?"

"What have you done to address it?"

These questions help you separate observable behavior from assumptions about someone's intentions.

They also prevent you from accidentally becoming an advocate for whichever employee reached your office first.

Sometimes You Need to Bring Them Together

Let's assume Mark and Jennifer have been struggling for several weeks. They've attempted to resolve the issue, but communication has deteriorated and their disagreement is affecting a project.

It's time for you to facilitate a conversation.

This is where many new managers become uncomfortable. They imagine a tense meeting where both employees spend 30 minutes presenting evidence against each other while the manager sits in the middle trying to look wise.

That meeting doesn't need to happen.

Before bringing them together, speak individually with each employee. Understand the concern, identify specific examples, and explain the purpose of the conversation. Make sure both understand that the goal is to improve how they work together, rather than determine which person wins an argument.

Then establish a few simple expectations.

Each person will have an opportunity to explain their experience without interruption. You'll focus on behaviors and work-related consequences rather than personality judgments. And the conversation needs to end with specific agreements about how they'll work together moving forward.

You might begin by saying:

"I know the two of you have been frustrated with how this project is going. You're both important to the team, and we need you working together effectively. I'd like us to understand what's causing the problems and agree on what needs to change."

Notice that you haven't assigned blame or demanded that they become friends.

You've established a shared objective.

That's important because employees can spend an entire conversation debating what happened last Tuesday without ever discussing how they'll work together next Tuesday.

Your job is to keep the discussion moving toward a better working relationship.

You Don't Have to Make Them Like Each Other

This is a distinction worth teaching new managers.

Your employees don't have to be friends.

They don't have to spend lunch together, share hobbies, or invite one another to their children's birthday parties. They don't even have to particularly enjoy each other's personalities.

They do have to treat one another professionally and work together in a way that allows the team to succeed.

Sometimes managers create unnecessary pressure by trying to manufacture friendship between people who simply don't connect personally.

What you need is a productive working relationship built on respect, clear expectations, and reliable communication.

That might mean agreeing that project requests will be documented in a shared system. It might mean establishing a standard response time. It might mean clarifying who owns which decisions, when information must be shared, or how disagreements will be escalated.

For Mark and Jennifer, the solution may be as simple as agreeing that Mark will provide requests at least two business days before he needs a response and Jennifer will acknowledge those requests within one business day.

Neither person needs to become the other's favorite coworker.

They need a way to work together successfully.

And if the disagreement involves genuine differences in judgment, the manager may need to clarify decision authority rather than asking them to keep negotiating indefinitely.

What If One Person Really Is the Problem?

So far, we've discussed situations where two employees are contributing to a disagreement. But managers also encounter situations where the responsibility isn't evenly distributed.

Perhaps one employee repeatedly speaks disrespectfully to coworkers. Maybe someone refuses to share information, undermines decisions, or consistently fails to meet commitments.

In those situations, remaining neutral can become a problem of its own.

Fairness doesn't require pretending both employees are equally responsible when the facts indicate otherwise.

If Mark repeatedly interrupts Jennifer in meetings, the solution isn't to tell both employees to communicate better. Mark needs specific feedback about interrupting.

If Jennifer consistently misses agreed deadlines, the solution isn't to ask Mark to be more understanding. Jennifer needs clarity about expectations and accountability for meeting them.

Managers should listen to everyone involved, examine the facts, and apply consistent standards. But once the behavior is clear, they need to address it with the person responsible.

Trying to split the blame evenly may feel diplomatic, but it can leave the employee experiencing the problem feeling unsupported.

This is especially important when one employee has more seniority, influence, or organizational power than the other. A manager's desire to keep the peace should never come at the expense of protecting appropriate workplace standards.

A Lesson From Pixar

There's a useful business example here from Pixar.

Ed Catmull, the longtime leader of Pixar and author of Creativity, Inc., describes the importance of candid feedback in the company's creative process. Pixar's Braintrust meetings bring experienced colleagues together to discuss films in development, identify problems, and challenge ideas.

Those conversations can be direct because the work matters, and everyone is trying to make the film better.

One important feature of the Braintrust is that its members don't have the authority to force the director to accept their suggestions. The director retains responsibility for deciding what to do.

Think about what that arrangement accomplishes.

People are encouraged to disagree honestly, but there is clarity about who owns the final decision.

That's a useful lesson for managers because some employee conflicts are really disagreements about work that have become personal.

Two people disagree about how to handle a customer, organize a project, or improve a process. Without clear decision rights and a shared objective, they begin interpreting disagreement as disrespect.

Managers can prevent a great deal of unnecessary conflict by creating an environment where employees can challenge ideas without attacking people, understand who makes the final call, and remain committed to the decision once it's made.

A team doesn't become stronger by eliminating disagreement. It becomes stronger by learning how to disagree productively.

Don't Assume the Problem Is Solved Because the Meeting Ended

You've facilitated the conversation. Both employees have agreed on how they'll work together. Everyone leaves the room politely.

Excellent.

But you're not finished.

Managers sometimes treat a successful meeting as evidence that the problem has been resolved. In reality, you've established an agreement. Now you need to see whether people follow it.

Check in with each employee after a week or two. Ask whether communication has improved, whether commitments are being met, and whether anything still needs attention.

Pay attention to behavior rather than simply asking whether everything is okay.

If Jennifer is responding to requests on time and Mark is providing adequate notice, you have evidence of progress.

If they're still avoiding each other and the project continues to suffer, the problem hasn't been resolved.

Follow-up also communicates that the expectations established during the conversation actually matter.

And when you see improvement, acknowledge it. Employees who work through a difficult disagreement deserve to know you noticed the effort.

A Practical Approach for Your Next Employee Conflict

The next time two employees bring you a disagreement, I want you to work through five questions before deciding what to do.

First, what actually happened? Separate observable behaviors from assumptions about motives. Listen to the people involved and gather enough information to understand the situation.

Second, have they tried to resolve it themselves? For ordinary workplace disagreements, encourage direct communication when appropriate. Serious misconduct or safety concerns require a different response.

Third, what is the impact on the work? Determine whether the issue is a difference in personality, a breakdown in communication, unclear responsibilities, or behavior that violates expectations.

Fourth, what needs to change? Help employees establish specific agreements about communication, responsibilities, decisions, and professional behavior. Address individual misconduct directly rather than distributing blame to everyone.

Finally, how will we know it's improving? Follow up. Look for changed behavior, stronger cooperation, and better results.

You don't need to memorize a complicated conflict-resolution model. You need enough discipline to understand the problem before reacting and enough courage to address what actually needs attention.

Your Team Is Learning How to Handle Conflict From You

There is one final reason this matters.

When two employees disagree, everyone else is paying attention.

They notice whether you listen before judging. They notice whether you play favorites. They notice whether you allow disrespectful behavior to continue. They notice whether you encourage people to solve problems together or invite everyone to bring their complaints directly to you.

Over time, your response teaches the team how conflict works around here.

If you consistently avoid uncomfortable conversations, employees learn to avoid them too. If you react emotionally, they learn to hide problems. If you take sides before understanding the facts, they learn that relationships and politics matter more than fairness.

But if you remain curious, address behavior directly, encourage honest conversations, and follow through on expectations, your team begins to develop those same habits.

And that's where the real opportunity lies.

You may need to spend an hour helping Mark and Jennifer work through a disagreement today. But if you handle it well, they may be able to resolve the next one themselves.

That's a good outcome.

Because your goal isn't to become the manager everyone needs whenever two people disagree.

It's to build a team capable of working through disagreements without needing you in the middle of every one.

The next time someone appears at your door and asks, "Can I talk to you about Jennifer?" you'll have a better place to begin.

Ask what happened. Listen carefully. And before accepting the assignment of office referee, find out whether you can help two employees learn to work through the problem together.

They'll become better coworkers.

You'll become a better manager.

And you might even get a few of those minutes back.

Managers: Boundless helps new and developing managers navigate real workplace situations with practical leadership tools, coaching, and a community of peers who are learning alongside them.

​https://onboarding.leadwithboundless.com​

Business owners and executives: Strong teams need managers who know how to address conflict, communicate clearly, and develop people. Boundless helps organizations build those capabilities.

​https://pages.leadwithboundless.com/request-program-overview​

Onward.