Workplace 2030 — People, Trust & the Future of Work
Register now
Research for SEEK found that 3 in 5 Australians have had a bad experience working with someone with a different personality type. That’s most workplaces, most teams, and most careers at some point.
“Three in five Australians have had a bad experience working with someone with a different personality type.”
Personality clashes are uncomfortable. They slow teams down, create tension that nobody names out loud, and occasionally push good people out the door. But they’re also manageable, and often more predictable than they feel in the moment. Here’s a practical approach to handling them, whether leading a team or navigating one.
Before diving into the practical steps, it helps to understand why personality clashes happen in the first place. One useful framework is the DiSC® model.
DiSC® stands for the four main behavioural styles outlined in the model: D for Dominance, i for Influence, S for Steadiness, and C for Conscientiousness.
.png)
Conflict between different DiSC styles is virtually inevitable in any workplace. But when team members understand the model, conflicts tend to become conversations rather than standoffs. Knowing why someone operates the way they do makes it easier to bring empathy into the room instead of just frustration.
Conflict rarely arrives announced. Early signs of tension are easy to miss: a drop in team morale, increased stress levels, a dip in productivity. Watch for changes in how people communicate. Are team members becoming more reserved or confrontational? Are there unexplained absences or more sick days than usual? These are signals worth paying attention to. Catching them early means stepping in before things spiral.
Personality clashes usually have more than one cause. Understanding what’s actually driving the tension makes it easier to address. Common sources include:
By identifying these underlying causes, we gain a deeper understanding of each party’s perspective and motivations. This helps us avoid making hasty judgements based on stereotypes or biases.
This step encourages open communication, ensuring that individuals can express their thoughts and concerns without fear of judgement or exclusion. A judgement-free zone where constructive feedback and differing opinions are not only accepted but encouraged is instrumental in resolving conflicts and building a harmonious work environment. Encourage active listening among team members. This means not just hearing words but truly understanding the underlying message. Acknowledge and validate their perspectives to show that their input matters.
One of the most practical things a manager can do is shift the team’s attention from individual wins to shared outcomes. Recognise collective effort, not just individual performance. When people feel they’re working toward something together, the friction from personality differences tends to carry less weight. Acknowledging different working styles and motivations openly, rather than ignoring them, also helps build the kind of trust that makes disagreement feel less threatening.
The goal of this step is to give people the skills to handle future conflict better, rather than
relying on managers to mediate every time. A few approaches worth considering:
When emotions are running high, the worst thing to do is push through. Stepping back, even briefly, gives everyone a chance to reset before things are said that are hard to walk back.
Remind yourself that differing viewpoints and personalities are an inherent aspect of any workplace. Rather than viewing clashes as personal attacks, see them as opportunities for personal and collective growth. Emphasise that, at the core, everyone shares a common goal, despite the differences.
Dale Carnegie’s Principle 17 is to “try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view”. It’s straightforward advice that’s easy to skip when things are tense. Taking a moment to genuinely consider a colleague’s perspective, their pressures, their working style, their motivations, changes the dynamic. Understanding someone doesn’t mean agreeing with them. It means going into the conversation with curiosity rather than a verdict.
Start by identifying what both people actually care about. The success of a project, the functioning of the team, a shared deadline. Common ground usually exists, even when the relationship feels strained. Finding it gives the conversation somewhere useful to go. Focus on what comes next rather than relitigating what went wrong. The more the conversation is oriented toward solutions rather than grievances, the more likely it is to move somewhere useful.
It’s important to maintain your integrity and seek assistance when necessary. Resist the temptation of gossip, as it rarely leads to a positive outcome. Instead, focus on addressing the issue directly and professionally. Choose your confidants wisely, seeking support and guidance from trusted colleagues or mentors who can offer constructive advice and help you navigate the situation. In some cases, conflicts may escalate beyond what individuals can resolve on their own. If communication breaks down irreparably, consider involving a mediator or HR professional to facilitate a constructive dialogue.
Pick one clash you’re currently navigating. Before your next interaction with that person, take five minutes to map out what their interests, pressures, and perspectives might be. Walk into the next conversation curious rather than defensive, and notice the difference. These steps get easier with practice. And the managers and team members who handle conflict well tend to be the ones others want to work with. That’s good for teams, and it’s good for careers.