A team member came to me yesterday asking for advice on how to deal with a difficult peer.
She walked in with a 3-page document detailing incidents going back almost two months.
It included timestamps, WhatsApp screenshots, examples of him taking credit for shared work in a review, cutting her off in meetings, and ignoring messages until she escalated them.
She wanted my advice on how to have the conversation with him.
I almost gave her the advice she came for: how I would frame the conversation, what I would say, and how to keep emotions out of it.
Instead, I asked her what outcome she wanted from the conversation first.
She said she wanted him to stop, acknowledge what he had done, and understand the impact it was having on her work.
I told her none of that was going to happen, and that the conversation she was planning was likely to make her position worse.
This is what I want to write about this week, because I have watched a lot of early-career people spend weeks of energy on a peer they were never going to fix.
Some peers are difficult because they see the work differently, communicate poorly, or are dealing with pressures you can't see.
Those people can usually be talked to, and the conversation often works.
And the early-career mistake, which I have made myself more than once, is treating the second kind of peer like the first, because positioning games do not get resolved through conversations in meeting rooms.
This also means that when you walk into a meeting with a competing peer to "have the conversation," you are giving him more information about what gets to you and starting the next round of the same game.
The Indian data tells the same story.
Harappa Insights found that 58% of Indian professionals who had quit a job cited toxic peers who promoted unhealthy competition as a top reason, and most of those leavers are the ones who tried hardest to fix it before they left.
So here is what I told her.
Figure out which kind of peer you are dealing with before you decide what to do about him.
Some people are difficult because they challenge your thinking while others are difficult because they make work exhausting.
Earlier in my career, the teammate who irritated me most was often the one asking questions I hadn’t thought about.
It’s annoying, yes, but useful.
Trial lawyer Jefferson Fisher, whose book on difficult conversations became a NYT bestseller this year, puts it well.
Most people we call “difficult” are usually dealing with some insecurity, fear, or unmet need.
The problem is that they express it badly, and everyone around them ends up feeling the impact.
Fisher also makes a point: use "we" instead of "you."
Most of the time, difficult peers aren't self-aware enough to know what they're doing so this might work.
If you match their energy, you become part of the problem.
If you completely shut down or stop speaking up, people notice that too, and you lose ground.
But if you stay calm, stick to the point, and don’t make things personal, that’s usually what people remember later.
And the best way to do it to by complimenting them
When someone’s been difficult, the last thing you feel like doing is appreciating them (I get it).
But recognition is a de-escalator.
For example, “You handled that client situation really well.”
A lot of people calm down once they feel acknowledged instead of ignored or challenged all the time.
I know it is easier said than done.
And if you truly feel that you are surrounded by many of such peers then probably you are in the wrong room and leaving might be the right call.
I always tell my students that life is too short to be trying to be someone else.
If any other approach has worked for you, please let me know by replying to this email.
I read every reply.
Swati