![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[syndicated profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/feed.png){kind=small}
askamanager_feed at 05:59pm on 24/07/2025A reader writes:
Something happened at the hairdresser that made me want to ask your take on something.
The salon I go to is co-owned by two best friends, and normally the atmosphere is amazing. Everyone’s chatting, laughing, and it feels like walking into a warm hug. That comes from the owners’ friendship and is one of the reasons I go. But on my last visit, the mood was icy. It seemed that they’d had a falling-out, and it completely changed the energy in the room. I left not wanting to go back. If others feel like me, it could hurt their business.
It made me speculate: how do workplaces manage this kind of dynamic when the job itself depends on (or is made better by) chemistry? Take news presenters or radio hosts: people tune in for the content, sure, but the vibe between hosts is a big part of the appeal. What happens when that spark fades — due to a falling out, a tough time in life, or a general shift in the relationship? They’re still technically doing the job (reading the news, being on air), but something essential feels missing.
I know that when I’ve had a tough interaction or something is draining my energy, I can take a 30-minute break from them or the task to re-set, and then I’m back at it. But people in these roles may not have that luxury.
You’ve said before that being cordial is the minimum expectation at work, but what about jobs that are quasi-dependent on visible friendship or chemistry? Can someone be performance-managed for having “less spark,” even when the core duties are being fulfilled? Is that something that could be included in a job description or used if things go south?
I’m especially thinking about full-time roles where connection is part of the job, whether explicitly or not. It feels relevant beyond just TV or radio, too — sales, customer service, even project managers in high-stakes client work.
As a manager in that situation, the best thing you can do is to define performance around the outcomes you want. The job requirement isn’t “you need to have great chemistry with your colleague,” but rather is tied into whatever it is that you’re hoping will result from that. So the goal to hold the person to might be “customers enjoy being here and find the environment warm and engaging,” or “viewers are excited to tune in and enjoy watching you interact with fellow hosts” or “your interaction with your fellow host contributes to the appeal of the show and keeps viewers engaged” and so forth.
It’s not really about what’s in their heart, or how they feel about their colleague personally. It’s about what the work need is.
In your salon example, those are co-owners so presumably there’s no manager to intervene. But if their fall-out continues and they’re reasonably savvy businesspeople, at some point they’ll need to recognize that what’s happening between them interpersonally is affecting their business and so something needs to change, even if it’s just parting ways. (I would imagine they might conclude that eventually just for their own quality of life, as well.)
The post what if your job depends on getting along with one specific coworker? appeared first on Ask a Manager.
