Ask the managers of a certain high-volume restaurant in the Midwest what their greatest work challenge is, and they’ll likely answer with some version of the same refrain: managing difficult employees.
When something goes wrong—an item sells out during the lunch rush, customers complain about slow service, or a delivery arrives late—a manager often responds by firing off an angry group email. “This is unacceptable!!!” or “The kitchen needs to answer for this!!” is the typical tone.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Feeling attacked, employees tend to lash out in return, whether by replying defensively over email or venting their frustration in person. The result is a dysfunctional workplace in which both management and employees believe they are dealing with difficult coworkers—and repeat problems go unresolved.
Many managers feel they’re fighting an uphill battle when it comes to personnel issues. Yet in many cases, managers themselves play a significant role in creating—or escalating—difficult situations at work: employees who bicker constantly, undermine one another, or push back against seemingly straightforward rules.
When dealing with difficult employees, psychological research suggests it’s often wise to start by looking in the mirror.
Changing the Blame Game
The cycle of errors and conflict at the Midwest restaurant reflects a well-documented human tendency. When judging others, we’re inclined to attribute their behavior to internal traits—laziness, carelessness, a bad attitude—rather than to external factors beyond their control, such as a late delivery or an unexpected surge in customers. In other words, we play the blame game.
At the same time, we tend to explain our own mistakes in terms of external circumstances. We cut ourselves slack while holding others to a harsher standard.
This cognitive bias was first demonstrated in laboratory research by Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris, and later labeled the fundamental attribution error by psychologist Lee Ross. It is also known as the correspondence bias or attribution effect. The bias arises in part because we lack full visibility into other people’s constraints, pressures, and decision-making processes—yet assume we fully understand their intentions.
At the restaurant, for example, when the kitchen runs out of a popular dish during the lunch rush, a manager may assume the chef failed to order enough inventory. The chef, meanwhile, may blame the receiving department for losing part of a delivery. The reality may lie somewhere in between—or somewhere else entirely.
This tendency to blame others for problems we would excuse in ourselves can lead managers to believe they are managing difficult employees, while employees conclude they are working for difficult leaders.
A Shift in Perspective
Managers have much to gain by abandoning the default assumption that the problem lies with “difficult employees.” The following three guidelines can help reset the dynamic.
- Take a fact-finding approach. When something goes wrong, resist the urge to immediately assign blame. Give yourself time to cool off, then speak with employees individually and privately. Ask them to walk you through what happened from their perspective. Be explicit about your goal: understanding what went wrong so you can fix it together. Emphasize that you’re not looking to punish anyone, but to prevent repeat problems. Listen without judgment, and resist the temptation to interrupt or correct.
- Brainstorm solutions Together. Rather than imposing top-down fixes, involve employees in identifying solutions. They are often closest to the work itself and best positioned to see where processes break down. In many cases, relatively simple organizational changes—adjusted workflows, clearer handoffs, better communication—can dramatically improve outcomes. Importantly, these fixes don’t require employees to change who they are, only how the system around them operates.
- Foster a learning environment. Moving beyond the mindset of “managing difficult employees” also means creating a workplace where people can learn from mistakes. This doesn’t mean tolerating careless or disengaged work. It means allowing room for thoughtful experimentation without fear of immediate punishment. When employees feel safe taking calculated risks and sharing ideas, they are less likely to become defensive or disengaged—and far more likely to surprise you with their creativity and commitment.
What strategies have you found effective for resolving personnel conflicts in your organization? Share your experience with our readers in the comments.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealing with Difficult People
Discover how to collaborate, negotiate, and bargain with even the most combative opponents with, Dealing with Difficult People, a FREE report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
This post really highlights the nuanced challenge of managing difficult employees while also reflecting on our own responses as managers. It’s a powerful reminder that self-awareness plays a crucial role in conflict resolution. Understanding our triggers can lead to more effective management strategies. Thanks for shedding light on this!
Thank you for this information. I enjoyed reading it. You have provided insights I never thought of before. For example, when brainstorming for solutions, sometimes organizational changes and a safe environment where people can explore their interests and be creative can increase productivity. Thank you so much!