193. You Will Have To Work With Them

Working with people we didn’t choose requires intention, emotional regulation, and a willingness to adjust our level of agreeableness to fit the moment. We learn that our credibility grows when we can build trust quickly, set boundaries confidently, manage up effectively, and respond to conflict without slipping into revenge or reactivity. We ultimately strengthen our influence by handling interpersonal challenges professionally and showing that we can deliver results despite it all.

Your success depends on learning how to collaborate effectively, even when those personalities test your patience.

Are you finding it exhausting to work with coworkers whose communication styles or personalities clash with yours? Are you unsure how agreeable you’re supposed to be at work—and when to push back instead of giving in? Are you struggling to stay professional when someone frustrates you, crosses a boundary, or triggers your irritation?

You’ll learn that your level of agreeableness is a dial you can intentionally adjust to build goodwill, set boundaries, and protect your energy while still getting the work done. You’ll also learn how to regulate your emotional responses, manage up effectively, and replace revenge impulses with strategic professionalism.

WHAT YOU WILL DISCOVER

• Why understanding and adjusting your agreeableness matters for dealing with challenging coworkers

• 5 practical tips to strengthen your working relationships

• Why resisting revenge and learning to reset emotionally positions you as someone who can work effectively with almost anyone

SUBSCRIBE: APPLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY | AMAZON | PODBEAN | POCKETCASTS

DOWNLOAD GUIDE TO WORKING WITH COWORKERS YOU DIDN'T CHOOSE

DOWNLOAD TRANSCRIPT

TRANSCRIPT

Welcome to the Stop Sabotaging Your Success podcast, episode one hundred and ninety-three. I'm your host Cindy Esliger. This is the podcast focusing on what we can do today to take control of our careers and overcome the inevitable barriers to success that we encounter along the way. 

In most workplaces, you don't get to hand-pick the people you work with. More often than not, you're the new person, joining a well-established team that already has its own rhythm, inside jokes, and unspoken rules. You're thrown into the mix with people who bring different skills, personalities, and sometimes, wildly conflicting communication styles. Your success depends on learning how to collaborate effectively, even when those personalities test your patience. Competence gets you in the room, but it's your ability to read the room – where you leverage your people skills, adaptability, and emotional intelligence – that actually moves the work forward. 

In this episode, we're talking about determining how agreeable you need to be in your workplace and recognizing that it can be adjusted, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes, you need to turn up the dial to build your social capital, create goodwill, and smooth over hostilities. Other times, you need to turn it down to protect your boundaries, clarify your responsibilities, and stop unreasonable demands from derailing your priorities. And when conflict crosses the line and you feel wronged, maintaining your professionalism – not acting on your revenge fantasies – is the move that protects your reputation and influence. 

It's a matter of learning to reset, to set better boundaries, and escalate things only when necessary. This is how you balance flexibility with firmness, collaboration with self-respect, and professionalism over pettiness – so you can work with almost anyone. 

You will have to learn to work with people. Unfortunately, that's the truth of multidisciplinary work. They're part of your team, part of your department, or embedded somewhere inside the complex consortium of companies that have been awarded the project. Maybe you only have to work with them for this quarter, or maybe it's expected to go on for years. Either way, the work has to get done, at least until you can find something better, if it gets that bad. 

That alone reshapes the question from, "How do I avoid this person?" to "How do I do what needs to be done while protecting my sanity and maintaining my professionalism?". This requires building trust, calibrating your level of agreeableness, and creating a toolkit that lets you work effectively with almost anyone without compromising your integrity in the process.

The 'us versus them' mentality tends to be the default setting of the human brain. It's not a moral failure; it's an efficiency hack your mind uses to sort the complexity of interpersonal relationships. Many times, it's people from different departments, in multiple different locations, coming together to form a team. They all tend to make their own assumptions, which can create the silo effect. 

Competence alone doesn't eliminate those barriers. Your capabilities get you onto the project and included in the array of design meetings, but collaboration is what moves the project forward. So, how do you develop a working relationship with people you don't particularly like, didn't choose, and don't fully trust, yet? 

We tend to overestimate how long it takes to connect with someone and underestimate the impact of small, deliberate moves that can quickly foster the trust with someone that you're just getting to know. You can stack those moves in a matter of minutes, not months. 

Some examples of these types of moves include sending a one-line acknowledgement that highlights a colleague's contribution and gives them evidence that you're seeing the effort they're putting in. You might forward a template, add the name of a reviewer mistakenly omitted from the message chain, or let people know about a new requirement that was just identified that might change the overall approach. This helps you signal partnership without adding much to your task list. 

Being aware of the phrasing you're using to ask pertinent questions can help change the perceived tone from policing to problem-solving. A little preparation before the meeting where a decision needs to be made can go a long way, with just three bullets, where you state the problem, possible options, and provide a recommendation. This can reduce the cognitive load and get the meeting focused on the key points. If you're thinking you don't have the time for this, here's the paradox: giving a tiny bit of help often creates the goodwill that becomes your social capital that you can draw on when you need it. 

Okay, so that can start you off on the right foot. But, what about the truly difficult ones – the serial interrupter, the colleague who cc's your boss with a vague cloud of 'concerns', or the one who wants to innovate when the timeline and budget are limited? Maintaining professionalism doesn't mean being a doormat. This is where appropriate agreeableness comes in – agreeable enough to collaborate, but not so agreeable that you enable the nonsense. 

Think of agreeableness as a dial, not an identity. You don't have to always be either 'polite and pliable' or 'confrontational and combative'. You can turn the dial based on the situation. We've been conditioned to think that people are either agreeable, or not. The truth is more nuanced, where everyone can decide for themselves what the situation requires. 

In order to calibrate our level of agreeableness, we need to develop some important habits. It starts by taking a moment to pause before immediately saying 'yes', especially when someone is trying to offload work. You could buy yourself a little time by saying, "Let me see how this fits with all the other things I have going – what's the real deadline and who else is involved?". That just might save you from agreeing to something you might end up resenting later. 

Sometimes, it won't feel like you have a choice. In that situation, try framing it as a trade-off to manage your workload: "I can pick this up and to do it well, I'll need to push something else off until next week, so what should we deprioritize?". Where possible, offer two viable options to shift the burden of choice back to your boss, where it belongs. 

Sometimes, it helps to acknowledge what you believe they're after before you propose an adjustment to make it more manageable for you. For instance, "I see why you want daily updates to keep momentum going and avoid surprises, but can we achieve that with twice weekly instead?". This helps people feel heard even as you reshape their request into something more sustainable. The key is to document what's been agreed upon after you align, with a quick summary of the facts, leaving out the commentary that might include your feelings and opinions. 

Coalition-building moments call for a little more 'yes, and', while boundary protection moments call for a little more of the 'no, but' phrasing. So, it's a matter of knowing when to dial up your agreeableness and when to dial it down. I would suggest dialing it up when partnership is the play, as in, "I am flexible on the format you'll need to do your reporting, so let's figure it out together" – and dial it down when your boundaries are being tested, disregarded, or intentionally violated. The question to keep in mind is: what kind of agreeableness suits this moment – using a collaborative tone or holding a firm line? Determine the answer for yourself, and then respond accordingly.

That question also helps you avoid the two extremes, the people-pleaser or the antagonist. The people-pleaser pitfall looks like nodding without speaking up, smiling when you're thinking, "This is ridiculous" and hearing yourself saying 'yes' because saying 'no' feels rude. The antidote to this self-betrayal is to practice by testing a firm and kind boundary line when the stakes are low, so that you can deploy it in the high-stakes, high-pressure situations.

We get tripped up being seen as the antagonist when our default becomes dissent – where we immediately list off all the reasons why their plan will never work. This erodes trust even when your critique is right. The better approach is first acknowledging what works before proposing changes, such as, "I like what we're saying because it seems to simplify things and what if we were to incorporate a slight tweak to a few of the steps to avoid a lot of rework?".

It's also important to note that the difficult people aren't always our peers. Sometimes, they're higher up the food chain, which makes boundary-setting a wee bit trickier. This is where managing up matters. It's not about flattery; it's about creating the conditions for your success by securing clarity and alignment. If you don't know what your manager is measured on, you're guessing where to direct your effort. If you don't know what's expected in your role in the next few months, you'll be working hard on what you think matters while your boss reports something else up the chain. That's how capable people end up invisible – or expendable. 

So, ask better questions, early and often: "What metrics will you be using to evaluate my performance?" and "What does good versus great look like for my role in the next three to six months?". Those are important questions to be asking. The answers can help you reroute your energy toward promotable work and give you language to advocate for your impact, when the time comes.

Then, pair those answers with a bit of style decoding. Not everyone speaks the same work dialect. As Melody Wildling talks about in her book, 'Managing Up', Commanders – with high dominance and low sociability want – three bullets and a decision, not all the details. Caretakers, on the other hand, with low dominance and high sociability, want the backstory, stakeholder considerations, and risk management before they act. Neither is wrong; both just require different packaging of the information you're trying to convey. If you pitch to a Commander with twelve slides of context, you'll lose them. And, if you pitch to a Caretaker with only three bullet points, they'll panic. Be flexible in how you present your ideas, and you'll be much more successful in getting their buy-in. 

Setting boundaries can also require a little finesse. We've all had the experience of being overloaded, when someone dumps 'just one more thing' on us, and we think we only have two options: take it on because we feel we have to, or refuse and suffer the consequences. Instead, buy yourself some time by asking a few questions. Ask what's driving the urgency, what the real deadline is, who else is involved, and why you, specifically, came to mind for this assignment. Those questions can provide clarity as to whether the tasks should be yours at all and, if it is, they give you context to frame a more realistic plan. 

Professional pushback is best phrased as a trade-off decision that you are deferring to others for direction to proceed. You're not being defiant; you're being realistic and giving them fair warning that there just aren't enough hours in the day to get it all done. Just be sure your tone is collaborative, factual, and calm, which signals both respect and competence. 

Even with all of this, there will still be moments when someone's behavior is aggressive, annoyingly frustrating, or just pisses you off. Sometimes, the people we work with make us so furious we fantasize about getting revenge. That's a human response. In the workplace, though, acting on revenge is the professional equivalent of setting your own reputation on fire to enjoy a few seconds of warmth. You don't just scorch the other person; you singe yourself, and then you'll need to spend a long time trying to salvage what's left of your reputation. 

Revenge-proof professionalism starts by naming the urge to get even, without indulging in it. The problem isn't the thought; it's what happens when you feed it. If you rehearse revenge in your head, you'll get that little dopamine surge – while still feeling the same frustration, only now you're more agitated. The more you loop in this way, the more likely it is to leak out in small, unprofessional ways, like the sharp email, the intentional omission, or the eye roll you didn't hide as well as you'd hoped. Those missteps corrode trust, and they teach people to be wary around you. Before long, you were perceived as 'difficult to work with', which comes with its own consequences. 

What you may not realize is that the reset is actually forgiveness. And no, that's not the same as a pardon. Forgiveness doesn't mean you absolve the other person or agree that nothing wrong happened; it means you stop hauling the anger around long enough for your executive function to come back online. Think of forgiveness as self-regulation. When you slow your emotional reaction, you can see the more professional response, where you disengage, set a boundary, or choose to escalate. Without the reset, your choices narrow to fight or fume. 

Implementing a simple sixty-second protocol can help you de-escalate the situation in real-time. Take two slow breaths, with a longer exhale to coax your nervous system to calm down. Then, imagine what forgiveness would feel like in your body – warmth in your chest, your jaw unclenching, and your shoulders lowering away from your ears. You don't have to be forgiving forever; just picture the sensation. Once your system shifts back toward calm, choose one professional action to take. 

Maybe it's time to clarify your behavioral boundary: "I won't accept personal attacks. Let's focus on the work." Or, disengage and redirect your effort where you can influence outcomes. The point is not to excuse their behavior; it's to regain control of your emotions and make an intentional choice in how you want to respond. 

If the urge is too strong to overcome by taking a few breaths and visualizing forgiveness, remove yourself from the situation. Once you've distanced yourself, try running an imaginary trial in your head. I know this might sound a bit corny, but hear me out.

First, be the prosecutor and tell your story exactly as you experienced it. Then, perhaps begrudgingly, be the defendant and invent their perspective, including all the excuses and the rationalizations you would expect them to say. Next, be the judge, where you weigh the facts, not your feelings, and render a verdict. Then, take on the role of the warden and let yourself fully imagine doling out the 'punishment'. If you play this all out, you may recognize that it's rarely as satisfying as you may have imagined.

Finally, decide whether you want to keep carrying the anger or release it and move forward. It's surprising how often, by the time you reach the warden step, you no longer want to be the person who administers pain or judgment; you just want it to be over. That moment is when you reclaim your power, allowing you to choose a more productive action, with a clear head. 

From there, channel the energy into more professional behaviors rather than revenge. Document dates, times, actions, and impact so you'll have the evidence you need, should you wish to pursue this further. I recommend that going forward, you ask for a third-party observer in recurring flashpoint meetings or insist on written follow-ups so patterns become visible to others and not just something vague that only you sense is at play. 

Set and communicate your own boundaries calmly and directly, and repeat them as many times as needed when they're tested. If the behavior crosses lines that requires formal action, approach HR with your documented evidence in order. Just remember, HR exists to protect the company, so once you start that process, you no longer have control over where it will go. 

Working well with almost anyone is something to strive for. It takes practice and comes from creating better habits so that we're starting every interaction from a better place. You can dislike a coworker and still collaborate effectively. You can set a boundary to protect your energy. You can be generous without leaving yourself open to be taken advantage of. The through line is intentionality – small, consistent choices that lower friction, increase clarity, and bank goodwill you can use later. When you operate in that way, you're doing what you can to reshape your workplace while demonstrating your professionalism. 

But remember, there will still be days when you miss the mark. You'll fire off that nasty reply to set the record straight or feel obliged to agree immediately and miss the opportunity to ask a clarifying question. Notice it. Then, adjust your level of agreeableness for next time. Recognize that you're a work in progress. 

If you want to expand your toolkit to help with this, create a set of pocket phrases to have at your fingertips for the following types of situations:

• To build trust, give a quick shout out to acknowledge a job well done. 

• To demonstrate your agreeableness, show how you can be flexible to accommodate their request by stating what you can do for them. 

• To hold your boundaries, ensure there's a trade-off before agreeing to any new requests. 

• To ensure alignment, get clarity around performance expectations for your role. 

• To push back professionally, provide options so those up the chain can make an informed decision on priorities.

Learning to work with just about anyone is about mastering self-regulation. The reality is you won't get to pick every teammate and you will have to find a way to work with them. When you learn to do that on your own terms – when you can quickly build trust, adjust your agreeableness with intention, manage up for alignment, and replace revenge-seeking with professional moves, you become the person people trust to get complicated things done, with challenging people. That reputation travels fast and it's the kind that opens doors for you in the future. 

What many people don't realize is that your reputation for how you handle difficult coworkers often matters more than the difficulty itself. In other words, managers and decision-makers aren't only watching whether you deliver results, they're watching how you deliver them, especially when the stakes are high and there are a wide range of personalities in the mix.

Being able to consistently demonstrate measured professionalism signals leadership readiness in ways that raw competence never can. Not overreacting, not stonewalling, and not gossiping. It shows you can navigate friction without losing credibility, which reassures decision-makers that you'll be effective in bigger roles, with higher stakes, and more complex teams. 

Many people believe advancement is all about the technical mastery or simply outlasting the difficult personalities. What they don't realize is that the way you manage yourself in these hard moments is often the quiet differentiator that gets you promoted. 

At the end of the day, maintaining your professionalism gives you leverage. It's the quiet confidence that lets you navigate the mess without becoming part of it. By treating your level of agreeableness as a dial, you can strike the right balance between coalition-building and boundary-setting, while managing up to stay aligned on what truly matters. And, when conflict arises, resisting the urge for revenge ensures you protect both your credibility and your career – leaving you better equipped to thrive no matter who you're working with.

And, when the next opportunity arrives – and it will – no one will doubt whether you're ready for it. 

And that's it for this episode of Stop Sabotaging Your Success. Remember to download your Guide to Working With Coworkers You Didn't Choose at cindyesliger.com/podcast, episode one hundred and ninety-three.

Thank you to our producer, Alex Hochhausen and everyone at Astronomic Audio. Get in touch, I'm on Instagram @cindyesliger. My email address is info@cindyesliger.com. 

If you enjoy listening to this podcast, you have to come check out The Confidence Collective. It's my monthly coaching program where we dig a little deeper into what's holding you back in your career and we find the workarounds. We help you overcome the barriers and create the career you want. Join me over at cindyesliger.com/join. I'd love to have you join me in The Confidence Collective.  

Until next week, I'm Cindy Esliger. Thanks for listening.