 |
|
|
|||||
Managing a team with clashing personalities can be one of the toughest challenges for any leader, but it’s entirely possible to navigate interpersonal conflict and build cohesion among team members with different points of view. Here, experts in team management and organizational psychology offer proven methods for fostering collaboration and productivity among a group with differing personalities. Create Ritual and Name the Storm Conflict is not a red flag. In healthy, high-performing teams, it is a sign that people are engaged and care about the outcome. The real challenge is not avoiding conflict, it’s knowing how to move through it without damaging trust. One of the most effective approaches we use is teaching leaders to create ritual and name the stormnot just more meetings or surface-level check-ins. Ritual, in this case, means building a steady, predictable space on the calendar where teams can name what is working, what is hard, and what they need from each other. These moments become an outlet, a way to lower the pressure before it turns into resentment. They also create psychological safety and permission to tell the truth. But ritual alone is not enough. Leaders also have to name the storm when it hits. That means calling out what is being felt, even if it is uncomfortable. If tension is building, say it. If something feels off, bring it forward. People do not need every answer, but they do need honesty, presence, and leadership that does not avoid the hard part. In one team, two high-performing colleagues were consistently clashing. Their conflict was showing up in meetings, in Slack messages, and in how others tiptoed around them. We introduced a shared practice and helped them kick it off. Each person filled out three prompts: What am I working on that you may not fully see or understand? What do I appreciate about how you work? What is the one thing that would help us work better together? After a brief facilitated start to break the ice, they took it from there. There was no pressure to agree, just space to be honest. That first conversation shifted everything. The issue was not really personality; it was stress, misread intentions, and both of them feeling unseen. Once the story underneath the conflict was named, the energy changed. The strongest cultures are not built on agreement. They are built on rhythm, repair, and the courage to face what is real. Ritual provides structure. Naming the storm offers relief. Together, they create the kind of trust that holds when things get hard. And trust is not a soft skill; it is the foundation of every healthy culture and every company that intends to grow. Lena McDearmid, Founder & CEO, Wryver Use a 3-Step Process for Personality Clashes I am very skeptical of personality testing, but I do think most people are self-aware of their own personality “types.” So, when my clients or teams have had persistent personality clashes, we resolve them in a three-step process. The conversation is done in a group, but everyone knows the questions in advance. Each person answers a set of questions about themselves, their strengths, weaknesses, and triggers (see the list below). We all answer each question before going to the next so that at each step everyone dwells within that topic together. Others in the group may ask questions during that process. They may also point out when someone is being dishonest (like by saying their weakness is working too hard or some other deflecting nonsense). Then each person identifies a way in which they are likely to annoy or trigger someone else. This can be very specific and personal. One person may say, “I have a bad habit of interrupting. It probably annoys John.” Next, everyone identifies a strategy for getting themselves “un-hooked” when someone else in the group annoys them. For instance, John from the example above might say, “I will allow the interruption and then finish my thought and point out that I prefer not to be interrupted.” And finally, everyone commits to a specific strategy for reducing or stopping the behavior they have learned is most irksome to one or more peers. The person above might say, “I will focus on letting others complete their thoughts and catch myself before interrupting.” The process works on lots of levels. Everyone learns more about each other and themselves. Plus, each person is equally vulnerable when they identify some trait of their own that is annoying or discourteous. That shared humanity creates more charitable feelings toward each other. And of course, the strategies to both be less annoying and less annoyed help with the ongoing conflicts. Pretty soon, they are jumping in to help each other succeed in their behavior change goals. After all, most of us have annoying traits or habits. It’s easier to change yourself if everyone is working on their own bad habits with you.The questions to ask: What is your greatest strength as a person and professional? What are your greatest weaknesses personally and professionally? What three behaviors (in others) most annoy or trigger you? What habit or behavioral trait of yours is most likely to annoy or frustrate others? Amie Devero, President, Beyond Better Strategy and Coaching Apply Improvisation to Foster Team Cohesion One of the most effective and unexpectedly transformative approaches we’ve found for navigating interpersonal conflict and strengthening team cohesion is applied improvisation. As a firm championing collaborative methods, we seek tools that foster deeper connections across diverse teams. Applied improv is an underutilized approach that consistently surprises leaders with its impact. Unlike traditional conflict resolution strategies, improv invites team members to engage in low-stakes, playful activities encouraging listening, empathy, and trust. Through exercises rooted in “Yes, and . . .” thinking, participants suspend judgment, build on ideas, and stay presentskills that lead to effective communication and collaboration. In one engagement, we worked with a leadership team where two department heads had long-standing tension. Rather than forcing another structured mediation, we led a short improv session exploring shared dynamics. One exercise where each person added a line to a spontaneous story shifted the atmosphere. Laughter replaced tension, and both leaders later reflected that it helped them “hear each other without the baggage.” From there, communication opened and collaboration followed. The beauty of applied improv lies in its simplicity and emotional intelligence. It fosters psychological safety, invites creativity, and models inclusive behaviors that drive strong teams. In a world where diverse perspectives are a company’s greatest asset, improv helps people move past personal differences to co-create something greater. For teams exploring this approach, it’s key to start with the right mindset. Improv in’t about fixing conflict; it’s about creating shared experiences that build trust. Framing sessions as a chance to play and grow together helps lower defenses. Simple activities like collaborative storytelling or mirroring break the ice quickly. These aren’t about performance; they’re about presence, support, and attunement. What starts as laughter often uncovers deeper dynamics in a way that feels safe to explore. Leaders should embrace discomfortit signals authentic engagement. When they model vulnerability and playfulness, others follow. Reflecting afterward on how the experience felt and what lessons apply to daily work helps cement lasting change. In sensitive cases, a skilled facilitator ensures the space remains supportive. But in nearly any setting, applied improvisation offers something rare: a joyful, humanizing path to stronger teams. Tyler Butler, Founder, Collaboration for Good Leverage Group Activities to Bridge Generational Gaps Leadership often tests you in uncertain ways. Clashing personalities within teams can be most challenging. It becomes even more complex when you factor in generational differences. Approximately 70% of our workforce is Gen Z, with the remaining 30% being millennials. Interestingly, we have talented young leaders heading entire teams. Now, when it comes to differences in handling teams, Gen Zers tend to value immediate feedback, rapid decision-making, and direct communication. Millennials often prefer more structured processes and elaborate planning. For instance, when a 23-year-old team lead wants to pivot a product strategy based on user feedback, and a 32-year-old senior developer pushes for more comprehensive testing phases, you get real friction. Most companies default to HR interventions or formal one-on-ones when these conflicts arise. But here’s what I’ve discovered: Those sterile conference room discussions rarely address the underlying issue, which is often just a lack of genuine understanding between different working styles. Instead, we’ve built our conflict resolution around sports and wellness. We often organize group runs and yoga sessions, and quarterly, we participate in marathons as a company. Here’s why this works better than traditional approaches. During our weekend 10K runs, I’ve watched that same Gen Z team lead and millennial developer naturally start discussing their different perspectives. Without the pressure of deadlines or the formality of meeting rooms, they began understanding each other’s motivations. The younger lead realized that the developer’s cautious approach came from having seen rushed launches fail spectacularly. The developer understood that the lead’s urgency was driven by genuine user pain points. Physical activity releases endorphins, reduces stress hormones, and creates positive shared experiences. People return to work having seen each other as humans first, colleagues second. What traditional team-building misses is that it’s still work-adjacent. The result? The two individuals now collaborate seamlessly, with the developer’s thoroughness balancing the lead’s speed. Real understanding beats formal intervention every time. Anjan Pathak, Co-founder, Vantage Fit Reframe Conflicts to Facilitate Team Understanding Clashing personalities on your team can be a tough challenge for even the most experienced leader. The field of counseling and psychology can provide some insightful approaches to help navigate this often challenging team dynamic. One of the most simple yet powerful interventions that a leader can implement to help facilitate cohesion and respect is the ability to reframe. All business leaders know that stories are immensely powerful; they can help you sell a computer, negotiate a contract, and build lasting relationships. Your ability to “reframe” an interpersonal conflict on your team allows you to take control of the narrative and create a picture that can offer more cohesion and assist your team as a whole. I am a board member of a team that consists of a lead engineer and an attorney. Both are strong and opinionated personalities in their own right, and there was an instance where we were all on a fundraising call and the attorney was hesitant to answer a question, which left the engineer livid. After the call, the two of them went at itdismissing one another and criticizing the other’s approach. They were both telling themselves “a story” that the call was a disaster. It was evident to me that they were coming from two different perspectives and that all three of us were feeling the pressure to succeed. I drew upon my experience as a psychotherapist and was mindful not to “split” or take sides and instead find a creative way to reframe this situation. So, I chose to reframe that instead of “being a disaster,” this interaction was exactly what the prospective funder needed to hear. I specified, “He needed to hear that our engineering team was on point and ready to roll, and that our legal team was a risk management superpower and that both voices were critical in ensuring trust, efficacy, and overall professionalism, even if the two perspectives were seemingly ‘at odds’ with one another.” Although this reframe did not repair every emotion that they were experiencing, or create a Zen circle of transcendent bonding, it did allow both of them to come back to the table and continue creative problem-solving together. Louis Laves-Webb, LCSW-S, LPC-S, Psychotherapist/CEO, Louis Laves-Webb, LCSW-S, LPC-S & Associates Study Behavioral Patterns Beneath Personality Clashes When people talk about “clashing personalities,” they’re usually describing something else. In my experience, it’s often a lack of shared language around pressure and power, and sometimes even belonging. I tell others not to rush to resolve the tension but to study it. Look for the behavioral loops playing out beneath the conflict. Observe those roles people are unconsciously taking on (e.g., the protector, the performer, the fixer, or the ghost), and the threat they’re responding to. Once you see that, the clash becomes a pattern, and patterns can be interrupted. One approach I’ve used is to pause the task and invite each person to describe how they’re experiencing the room but not what they think of each other. That alone shifts the dynamic from judgment to self-awareness. Sometimes someone will say, “I feel like I’m being evaluated,” or, “I don’t know how to contribute without stepping on toes.” I tell them these aren’t personality traits. They’re more like survival strategies. Cohesion isn’t built by getting people to like each other. It’s more often built when people stop performing and start participating. And that only happens when the system makes space for complexity and when leaders make it safe to be wrong, to not know, and to shift roles. My mindset? If it feels messy, you’re probably on the right track. Clarity doesn’t come before discomfort.It comes after. That isn’t intuitive. It’s hard. But the best strategies usually are. Stephen Belenky, Co-founder & Chief Solutions Architect, Hiddn LLC Shift Focus from Ego to Shared Purpose Managing clashing personalities isn’t just about resolving conflict but rather about unlocking collective potential. One approach I’ve found effective is shifting the conversation from “Who’s right?” to “What do we need to create together?” That small shift reframes the dynamic from ego to purpose. A few years ago, I led a cross-functional, multicultural team in developing an extensive executive master class. None of us had worked together before, the project was brand new, the timeline was tight, and we were fully remote. Let’s just say the personality mix wasn’t smooth. The lead designer was fast-moving and visionary. The content strategist was deeply reflective and needed space to process. The graphics designer was opinionated and on their own creative clock. Tension wasn’t just expected; it arrived early and loudly. I realized the risk wasn’t open disagreement, but one voice dominating and others retreating. So instead of pushing through or trying to fix personalities, I hit pause. We ran a no-nonsense values alignment session where each person named what they needed to do their best work. That surfaced something powerful. We all cared deeply about excellence and success, but had radically different definitions of what that meant. From there, we co-created team agreements. These weren’t platitudes, but real, operational norms such as “share early, polish later,” “ask before assuming,” “silence doesn’t mean agreement,” and so on. Within two weeks, the friction transformed into flow. People understood each other’s rhythms, respected communication preferences, and trusted that everyone brought something vital to the table. We delivered ahead of schedule, but more importantly, we built a culture that didn’t just tolerate differences but thrived on them. Diverse personalities aren’t a problem to fix; they’re the foundation of a thriving team. But diversity alone isn’t enough. Trust and respect must be earned, and that only happens when each person brings meaningful value to the table. When someone doesn’t contribute, it’s not a personality issue but a clarity and accountability one. The key is creating a culture where every voice is heard, every strength is activated, and everyone understands what we’re building together. Maria Papacosta, Co-founder, MSC Marketing Bureau Design for Friction in Team Dynamics One thing I’ve learned is that you can’t fix personality clashes, but you can create conditions where they don’t get in the way of progress. I manage both marketing and sales teams, which are typically driven by very different personalities, and once we had a situation where two team leads from those respective teams just fundamentally rubbed each other the wrong way. Every cross-functional sync became a turf war, even when they were both technically right. Trying to mediate doesn’t always work on people. What worked instead was reworking the structure of how they interacted. We reduced direct one-on-one confrontation, shifted their collaboration into shared documents and asynchronous updates, and made KPIs [key performance indicators] the neutral ground. Instead of trying to get them to like each otherwe aren’t in elementary schoolwe focused on letting them work effectively despite the tension. Over time, that asynchronization lowered the emotional temperature. Their styles never matched, but they could respect each other’s results. The team dynamic improved not because we solved the clash, but because we stopped forcing harmony and started designing for friction. Andrew Byzov, CMO & HOS, AcademyOcean Clarify Roles to Prevent Misunderstandings One thing I do at the start of every project is have everyone write down what they think their job is, and then what they think everyone else should be doing. Then we sit around and read it all aloud. It sounds weird and awkward, I know, but how incredibly revealing it is totally compensates for everything. I had one campaign a few months ago where a strategist and copywriter kept butting heads. She thought he was stepping on her toes, and he felt like she was micromanaging him. When we did this exercise, we found they both thought they were supposed to create the messaging framework. Nobody had ever actually said who was handling what, so they were both doing the same work and getting frustrated. Once we talked it through, everything calmed down. We figured out who would handle the framework and who would execute it, and agreed to touch base after the first draft, instead of just passing documents back and forth with no real communication. This takes extra time up front, but it prevents weeks of people working against each other. I’ve done it with design teams, SEO folks, and even video crews. It lets everyone get their expectations out in the open before things get stressful. And the funny thing is, people are usually relieved when you do this. Everyone’s been wondering about the same boundaries, but nobody wants to be the one to bring it up. Austin Heaton, Head of Content, Rise Establish Minimum Viable Alignment for Progress Minimum viable alignmentI borrowed this concept from Adam Grant, who insists that people don’t need to agree on everything. They just need to agree on what matters most. Two of our content strategists couldn’t agree. One was obsessed with user data and couldn’t help keeping tabs on Google Search Console and Hotjar. The other was more instinctive. She cared more about the tone and wanted to rely on her gut feeling. They had the same KPIs but completely different approaches. Monday meetings were passive-aggressive, and it started getting out of hand. I asked them, “If this project were to go south, what would you blame it on?” One said ignoring data. The other said over-optimizing. I asked them to give me a shared list of three non-negotiables. Two months later, we got better content for our website. Yes, they still disagreed, but this time it was productive. Their list gave us the best-performing blog series we had ever published. Get people to agree on enough to move forward and leave the rest. Andrew Juma, Chief Executive Officer, CustomWritings.com Observe Unspoken Cues in Team Interactions I always pay close attention to what is not being said. Reactions, subtle shifts, and silence often reveal what wods do not. During a recent huddle, several issues surfaced at once. The project manager was trying to show initiative and push the team forward. The developer, who was new to the project, didn’t have space to speak and shut down. The manager jumped in and took over the conversation. That was the moment I stepped in and paused the meeting. I brought everyone back to where we actually stood in the project. I asked the PM to explain why those features were important to her. Then I turned to the developer and asked directly for his perspective. When he got interrupted again, I stopped the conversation and said, “I asked for his opinion.” That shifted the tone in the room. From that point on, the team communicated more openly and respectfully. I stay emotionally present and aware. I watch how people react, not just what they say. When I sense tension or someone being shut down, I force a pause, set structure and boundaries, and make sure people have the space to contribute. That’s what creates clarity, safety, and trust. Lila Diavati, Managing Director, Momencio
Category:
E-Commerce
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., but a long-standing and effective anti-smoking ad campaign that brought that number down is now ending. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Tips From Former Smokers” ads will stop airing at the end of September due to a reorganization that eliminates or reassigns the agency’s work on chronic disease, according to CBS News, which first reported the ad campaign’s upcoming discontinuation. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment. Launched in 2012, the “Tips From Former Smokers” public service announcements featured testimonials from real-life former smokers who shared their personal experiences. Their heartfelt calls to action encouraged viewers that they could quit too, like the message from Terrie, a North Carolina woman who spoke with the assistance of an electronic voice box. The former smokers in the PSAs opened up about health issues that resulted from years of smoking: cancer, gum disease, heart disease, HIV complications, and stroke. They were convincing. [Image: CDC] A rare combo: effective and universally liked The first ads in the series aired for just four months, at a cost of $48 million, but they had a high return on investment. The CDC says about 1 million people successfully quit because of the campaign, making its cost only $480 per smoker who quit. The campaign was estimated to have saved $7.3 billion in healthcare sector costs and prevented 129,100 premature deaths by 2018. The ads are also popular. An August Ipsos poll found 72% of Americans believe “television, online, and print advertisements aimed at reducing smoking or encouraging people to quit smoking are important,” though that varies by party affiliation. Democrats (82%) and Republicans (71%) are more likely to say they’re important than independents (67%). Still, a majority of those polled in each party agreed that such advertisements are important. [Screenshot: CDC] The Federal health system’s budget up in smoke The end of the CDC’s anti-smoking PSAs will come amid major downsizing and reorganization at the agency, which is seeing layoffs, firings, and mass resignations over anti-vaccine policies under Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Former CDC director Susan Monarez was fired last week after opposing Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes, and other top CDC officials have resigned, too, saying Kennedy is endangering Americans’ health. The end of “Tips From Former Smokers” isn’t the only thing the U.S. health system is losing under the second Trump administration. A new HHS budget makes cuts to primary care; care for mental and behavioral health, HIV/AIDS, environmental health, and maternal and child health; and the health workforce. And last month, the National Crime Prevention Council began selling “Take a Bite Out of DOGE” merch featuring McGruff the Crime Dog in order to raise money after Department of Government Efficiency cuts forced the nonprofit organization to put a public service announcement on hold amid an anti-fentanyl campaign. The anti-smoking campaign’s end, though, is great news for tobacco companies. A study published in the Journal of Smoking Cessation in 2022 found “Tips From Former Smokers” wasn’t only good at convincing people to stop smokingit also helped former smokers from relapsing.
Category:
E-Commerce
I remember a time when designing felt like speaking a secret language, a series of precise clicks and drags that, while powerful, felt more technical than fluid. Over the past three decades the evolution of design interfaces has been a journey from pixels to objects to conceptseach step abstracting away technical complexity and bringing us closer to pure creative intent. For years, the drag-and-drop interface has reigned supreme, democratizing design in ways we could only dream of before. But we’re now at a fascinating inflection point where the very nature of designing is evolving and giving way to something even more profound. Consider how a marketing manager can now type, “Create an Instagram story that captures the energy of our summer product launch,” and watch as AI generates multiple design directions in secondsthen continue the conversation to refine colors, adjust messaging, or explore different moods, all while collaborating with teammates who can contribute feedback in real-time. AI isnt just saving time on edits, it’s ushering in a paradigm where intent becomes the primary input, and natural language is the key that unlocks your first draft. This shift liberates us from the minutiae of technical execution, allowing us to focus on the truly visionary and strategic aspects of our work. This is what the researchers at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business call “generative synesthesia.” The harmonious blending of human exploration and AI exploitation to discover new creative workflows represents a fundamental shift in how we approach creativity. Analyzing datasets of over 4 million artworks, these researchers showed that text-to-image AI significantly enhances human creative productivity by 25% and increases the value of creative work by 50%. Beyond Text Boxes and Chat Interfaces To the Human as Creative Director While conversational interfaces are powerful starting points, the future of creative collaboration with AI goes far beyond text prompts. When you’re working with design, art, or music, it’s quite hard to think of the words to describe what you want to see, hear, or feelparticularly if you’re not skilled in those fields. Thinking of words for something you can’t even describe? That’s frustrating. We’re already seeing this evolution in action. In design products today, you can click on individual elements within an image and AI automatically recognizes what you’ve selectedwhether it’s a background, a person, or a specific objectand offers contextual editing options without requiring any text description. This automatic element recognition is just the beginning of more intuitive design interactions. That’s why I believe we’re moving toward hybrid experiences that blend conversation with direct manipulation. In practice, this might look like pointing at a section of your design and saying aloud, “Make this area feel more energetic,” while AI understands both the visual context of what you’re indicating and the emotional direction you want. You might start with natural language to establish direction, then use visual references to refine style, then return to conversation for iterations. The interface adapts to how creativity actually worksfluid, non-linear, and iterative. Consider a workflow where you upload a reference image, circle the part you like with your finger or cursor, and simply say “Apply this mood to my brand colors.” AI instantly understands the visual element you’re referencing and translates it into actionable design changes. These augmented tools let people work the way they think, not the way software traditionally demands. With these improvements to the way we interact with software, more people can now become creative directors while AI handles technical implementation. When AI can generate a dozen design variations in seconds, humans can focus on the higher-order creative decisions: Which direction best serves the vision? How does this connect emotionally with the audience? What story are we trying to tell? This shift mirrors how other creative industries have evolved. Film directors don’t operate cameras, they focus on vision, storytelling, and creative direction while specialized teams handle technical execution. AI is becoming that specialized technical team for visual creation and opening up a whole new world of possibilities for the 99% of the world who havent been able to access it before. The result is a new kind of creative leverage. A single person with a compelling vision can now execute ideas that previously required entire teams. But more importantly, the barrier between having an idea and seeing it realized becomes almost transparent. AI as Augmented Creativity The most important paradigm shift for designers and anyone embracing visual communication will be the shift from design tools to design intelligence. Instead of simply assisting with a starting point or end refinement, teams will be able to leverage AI as an intelligent thought partner thats versed in what truly works. Imagine how a tool thats trained on a vast database of brand assets will shape future design workflows. When coming up with a new campaign you can accelerate the foundational work of gathering existing brand assets, successful competitor strategies, and audience response data and verify your visual directions against that. Or rather than spending hours debating color palettes, AI will be able to instantly generate variations based on proven effectiveness for similar brands and audiences, using insights like “layouts with this visual hierarchy achieve higher engagement in B2B contexts” or “this color combination consistently builds trust with healthcare audiences.” This intelligence will extend to scaling tactical design decisions. Instead of designers manually crafting numerous layout variations, they can use their tool of choice to generate multiple compositions based on successful patterns from their previous work or industry peers. When selecting typography, ather than scrolling through countless font options, AI will recommend specific typefaces that have performed well for similar messaging and audiences, explaining why certain letterforms communicate trustworthiness while others convey innovation. The Collaborative Promise of Design Intelligence There’s a desire to view creativity in black and white terms: either it’s AI-generated or human-made. But work exists on a spectrum, with varying degrees of AI influence, from completely human-generated content to fully automated production. Those tight collaborative loops will ultimately shape how we work in an AI-powered world. The skills we need will evolve as well. A skill that a select few of us deployed yesterday now becomes crucial today: editing. As AI generates vast amounts of content, the human editor’s role is to fine-tune outputs, ensuring messaging is on-brand, culturally sensitive, and emotionally engaging. The editor’s experience and understanding of the audience plays a crucial role in transforming AI-generated content into something that truly resonates. As AI continues to evolve, I see a future where every person has unprecedented creative agency and where having an idea and bringing it to life becomes part of the same fluid, joyful process. This future is where the tools we use are as intuitive as thought itself.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||