Four Lenses for Designing Better Work Relationships
Lately, one question keeps landing in my inbox: “What should I do about this relationship problem at work?”
We all have that colleague—the one who introduces a little turbulence into the otherwise smooth flight of your project. (And, realize you could be that colleague!) Before you jump in, react, or (worse) decide they are a lost cause, you need a plan.
Your goal, as a Conspirator for Success, is to ensure the success of the project, yourself, and the people you care about. Sometimes, that requires working with people you don’t particularly like—and even ensuring their success. That’s a hard choice, especially if you suspect they aren’t rooting for you.
So, let’s consider four simple lenses that help you design action instead of just reacting to the drama. These lenses will help guide you in making better choices in who you work with and also how you work with them.
Lens 1: The Foundation of Shared Assumptions
Before anything else, you can reveal the underlying assumptions, the often going unspoken assumptions. The moment expectations are unclear, you get drama—and that often stems from wildly different underlying assumptions. So sharing them gets you in closer alignment.
These are sometimes hard conversations, but having them will help you make better choices together down the line.
What We Assume on a High-Performing Team:
- Mutual Commitment: We are just as committed to one another and the success of the project as we are to ourselves. We actively conspire for the success of everyone and the project.
- Self-Accountability: We each work to take ownership of our own success metrics.
- Shared Standard of Self-Accountability: We expect and are interested in others on the team being just as self-accountable.
- Shared Narrative: We agree on what the final win (success) looks like.
Be aware of the Drama Traps you agree to avoid:
- We don’t gossip.
- We don’t actively conspire for the failure of anyone. Problems arise, we work them through transparently.
- We don’t keep useful information to ourselves (information hoarding).
Once you share these basic assumptions, you can pull apart whether the relationship tension is due to a lack of commitment or just different thinking.
Lens 2: Abundance vs. Scarcity Continuum
With the assumptions set, let’s examine mindsets. We all fall somewhere on the Abundance and Scarcity Continuum. This isn’t a judgment; it’s a map. Locate yourself, and locate them.
Abundant thinkers:
- Propensity to trust first
- Open sharing of resources and information
- Actively referring and speaking well of others
- Expending personal energy actively for others
Scarce thinkers:
- Propensity to distrust first
- Reserved with information and resources
- Expends little personal energy on others
- Focus on protecting personal sphere/resources
The Wisdom: If you know someone is wired toward Scarcity, you can choose to bend your language and actions toward trust-building or mutually set formal communication practices before a conflict arises. You stop expecting their behavior to match yours and design your interaction accordingly.
Lens 3: Tension and Critical Input
It’s easy to label a high-tension relationship as “bad.” But sometimes, tension is just a sign that you are about to get better input.
Multiple studies show that people who think differently or hold opposing perspectives, yet share high esteem for one another (see Lens 1!), produce exceptional outcomes. This is the power of true diversity.
If you are always comfortable and working with people who “think like you,” you are likely designing a less complete, more slanted outcome.
- The Check: If the relationship is tense, refer back to the Shared Assumptions. Is the tension caused by someone violating a core assumption (like gossiping)? Or is the tension caused by genuine, yet respectful, differences in thinking (which is healthy)?
- Fun Fact: Tools like the Hermann Brain Dominance Index aren’t personality tests—they map orientations to thinking in systems. Understanding that diversity helps you welcome that tension for better results.
Lens 4: The Power of Choosing vs. Deciding
The final piece of your toolkit is the difference between Deciding and Choosing. This distinction gives you back your power in any messy situation.
- Deciding: To kill off or stop considering possibilities as you move toward your end goal.
- Choosing: To consider the whole, current picture and remain flexible enough to select a different, better end goal, seizing new opportunities that emerge when the original path becomes suboptimal.
If you decide your colleague is a “crazymaker,” you stop seeing opportunities for collaboration. If you choose to engage the situation using your three models (Shared Assumptions, Mindset Map, Tension Check), you maintain control and can select the best path forward—even if that path is choosing to set firm boundaries to protect your time.
Bringing It All Together
When difficulties arise with work relationships, don’t react. Consider finding a new perspective on the situation and design a different way to communicate.
Use these four lenses—Shared Assumptions, Abundance vs. Scarcity, Tension Check, and Choosing vs. Deciding—as filters to co-design any action you choose.
A final, essential note: As you explore these lenses and checks, focus on being realistic, not judgmental. It’s not necessarily good to think abundantly, or bad to think in scarcity. These mindsets are simply different cultural or personal conditionings. The greatest power in using these models comes from having the courage to be truthful and realistic about where everyone truly lands. This clarity opens the door to effective action.
Leave a Reply