On any team of size, there are three constructive ways to express disagreement (or frustration) about a colleague’s behavior / decision / idea:
- Disagree publicly in a public Slack channel, email mailing list, or in a group meeting that includes the colleague in question.
- Express your disagreement privately and directly with the colleague.
- Talk to the colleague’s manager privately about your disagreement. (Rare, but sometimes necessary.)
Here’s what’s not constructive: Talking 1:1 or in a small group with other colleagues about your disagreement (or frustration). If John has a frustration or disagreement with Dan, John should not be talking to Tom, Dick, or Harry about his frustration with Dan, unless one of those people is Dan’s manager.
Commiseration is an extremely common form of social bonding. On teams, it’s tempting bond over shared frustration with someone you both know in common: “Hey. Isn’t it annoying when Dan calls without advance warning and then rambles about his project list?”
Talking about a colleague behind their back, in private, with anyone who’s not their direct manager is extremely destructive culturally.
In Max Levchin’s post about building a meritocracy at Affirm, he says: “Do not allow ‘us and them’ dynamics to foment anywhere at Affirm.” That’s it. When a company transforms from “one team, one mission” to a team composed sub-coalitions and in-groups and out-groups, it’s toast. Rumors build, trust erodes, resentment rises, and team effectiveness plummets.
“Disagree productively and directly” or perhaps just simply “Don’t talk about colleagues behind their backs” are strong candidates for corporate values leaders should codify and enforce.