How to Deal With Workplace Drama

An office grievance often grows less through the original event than through repeated interpretations offered by people who were not present.

My assistant, who has lately acquired the modern habit of saying that a situation has ‘a lot going on’, was dispatched to a firm where two departments had ceased speaking except through calendar invitations and pointedly revised documents. He returned flushed with what he called intelligence. Margaret had said something to Priya. Priya had told Leon. Leon had gone quiet in the stand-up, which I understand is a meeting in which everyone stands for no obvious reason.

He returned with plentiful information, little of which would have helped either department complete its work.

Begin by asking what actually happened. Set aside meaning, gossip, and the certainty of people who were not present. What happened, when, who was present, what was written down, and what must be done next for the work to continue. A surprising quantity of office drama weakens once interpretation is removed.

Avoid becoming the person to whom everyone brings grievance. Listening kindly is one thing. Taking minutes for other people’s resentment is another. If a colleague begins, for the third time, to rehearse a speech they have no intention of giving, you may say, ‘I do not think I can help by going over this again. Have you spoken to them directly, or to your manager?’ This is restraint.

If the matter affects your work, keep a plain record of dates, decisions, changed requirements, and missed handoffs. “The deadline moved from Tuesday to Friday after the client changed the brief” may later be useful; “Everyone is being impossible again” proves only that irritation can be written down.

When the trouble is small and ordinary, speak privately. Public correction invites performance. A private sentence often does more. ‘When the plan changes after our meeting, I lose time reworking it. Can we agree that changes go in writing?’ This is useful because it names the effect and asks for a behaviour. Diagnosing the other person’s character is satisfying for three seconds and expensive thereafter.

Harassment, discrimination, bullying, threats, retaliation, unsafe work, wage disputes, and repeated misconduct exceed the reach of tact. Use the suitable formal channel, whether that is a manager, human resources, a union representative, an ombudsperson, a professional body, or legal advice. The little flattery of keeping a report “between us” should not displace a procedure which exists for serious matters.

Dignity does not require silence. A man praised for being no trouble may become very good at enduring bad treatment and calling it character; when the same person makes the same mess repeatedly at his expense, continued patience has become accommodation.

Refuse gossip with less ceremony than you think necessary. ‘I do not know enough to say.’ ‘That is between them.’ ‘I prefer to discuss her when she is present.’ These sentences are dull, which is why they work.

If you contributed to the mess, repair your part without mounting a defence of your entire character: “I spoke sharply in the meeting. I apologise; I should have raised the issue privately.” Modern apologies are often crowded with context, fatigue, intention, and weather, most of which may remain outside.

Nobody is entirely above office politics, though one can become less useful to gossip and performance than colleagues may expect. Their disappointment is generally survivable.