TL;DR: When two employees aren’t getting along, the manager’s job isn’t to be their therapist; it’s to restore accountability. You don't have to run to Google and search "how to handle two employees not getting along" in order to find a solution. You want to first start by documenting behaviors, clarifying expectations, and setting measurable standards. Hold each employee responsible for conduct and performance and not the feelings they hold. Conflict between employees is a management process issue, not a personality issue and it’s solved by providing clear structure and guidance and not mediation.
Most managers panic when two employees stop getting along. The air gets tight in meetings. Passive-aggressive emails start flying. Someone complains to HR. And suddenly you're spending hours trying to figure out who said what and whether anyone's feelings got hurt enough to worry about.
Here's what I learned after years of watching this play out in municipal HR and private sector hr across Texas: the conflict isn't the problem. The lack of structure around it is the problem.
When you don't know how to handle two employees not getting along, you end up playing therapist instead of manager. You smooth things over. You ask people to "just be professional." You hope it resolves itself. And six months later, one of them quits, the other one's checked out, and your best performer just told you they're tired of working in a toxic environment.
That's expensive. That's preventable. And that's what happens when conflict management is treated like a soft skill instead of an operational discipline.
Recognizing the Signs of Conflict Between Employees Who Do Not Get Along
You don't need a degree in organizational psychology to spot when two employees are not getting along. The signs show up in the work before they show up in HR complaints.
Deadlines start slipping. Handoffs break down. Emails that should take two sentences suddenly require three paragraphs and a cc to five people because nobody trusts direct communication anymore. Someone stops showing up to meetings, or shows up but says nothing. The other one suddenly has a lot of opinions about "how things should be done" that sound less like process improvement and more like personal grievance.
Most managers see these signs and hope they'll go away. They won't. Conflict doesn't evaporate because you ignored it. It metastasizes and only becomes more challenging to control.
Here's what conflict actually looks like in operational terms:
- Missed commitments with no explanation or accountability
- Communication breakdowns where information doesn't flow between two specific people
- One employee consistently working around another instead of with them
- Increased errors, rework, or duplicated effort because coordination has collapsed
- Complaints from other team members about being caught in the middle
- Passive-aggressive behavior that disrupts meetings or derails projects
When you see this, your job isn't to investigate who's right or who started it. Your job is to identify where the system broke down and rebuild accountability before it costs you good people or creates liability.
The earlier you recognize conflict, the easier it is to address. Wait until someone's crying in your office or threatening to file a complaint, and you're already behind. You're managing the explosion, not the cause.
Initiating a Private and Neutral Conversation
When you know how to handle two employees not getting along, you start with clarity, not diplomacy. That means separate conversations before you ever put them in the same room.
Don't open with "I've noticed some tension between you two." That invites defensiveness and storytelling. Instead, anchor the conversation in observable behavior and measurable impact.
Try this: "I need to talk to you about the project handoff on Tuesday. The deliverable was three days late, and it created a backlog for the client team. Walk me through what happened."
Notice what you're not asking. You're not asking how they feel about their coworker. You're not asking about intent or personality. You're asking about the breakdown in process and the impact on outcomes.
Meet with each person individually first and listen (actually listen) without jumping to conclusions. Take notes. Ask clarifying questions focused on what happened, not why they think the other person is difficult. Your goal is to gather facts, identify patterns, and understand where expectations weren't met.
Most managers skip this step because they think it wastes time. It doesn't. It protects you. When you document these conversations, you create a defensible record of what was said, what was committed to, and what standards were reinforced. If things escalate later, this documentation is what keeps you out of depositions explaining why you didn't address the issue when you first noticed it.
Keep the tone neutral. You're not accusing anyone. You're investigating a process breakdown. The moment you start taking sides or assigning blame based on who you like better, you've lost credibility with everyone watching.
After you've spoken to both employees separately, you'll have enough information to determine whether this is a performance issue, a communication issue, or something that requires HR involvement. Most of the time, it's the first two. And most of the time, it's fixable if you're willing to do the work.
Establishing Clear Expectations and Accountability
This is where most managers completely fall apart when trying to figure out how to handle two employees not getting along. They have the conversation, everyone nods, and then nothing changes because no one actually set measurable expectations or defined consequences.
Here's the framework that works. Use it every time.
Time needed: 2 hours
How to Navigate Having a Difficult Conversation
- Define the behavior that needs to change.
Be specific. "You need to be more professional" is useless. "When you receive a request from this team member, you will respond within 24 hours with a status update or a reason for delay" is actionable.
- Explain the impact of the current behavior.
Don't appeal to feelings. Appeal to outcomes. "When communication breaks down between the two of you, it delays client deliverables, creates rework for the team, and damages our credibility with stakeholders."
- State the expectation going forward.
This is not a suggestion. This is the standard. "Going forward, all project updates will be documented in the shared system by end of day Friday. If there's a conflict about priorities, you will escalate to me before making unilateral decisions that affect the other person's work."
- Set a timeline and follow-up.
"We'll meet again in two weeks to review how this is working. I'll be looking at communication logs, project timelines, and feedback from the rest of the team."
- Document consequences if the behavior doesn't improve.
"If the behavior continues and performance doesn't stabilize, we'll move to formal documentation. That could include a written warning, a performance improvement plan, or other corrective action."
Most people resist this level of clarity because it feels harsh. It's not harsh. It's fair. Ambiguity is what's harsh. When you let people guess what you expect and then penalize them for guessing wrong, that's cruel. When you tell them exactly what needs to happen and exactly what will happen if it doesn't, that's respect.
The key to knowing how to handle two employees not getting along is understanding that you're not fixing a relationship. You're enforcing a standard. They don't have to like each other. They don't have to be friends. They have to meet commitments, communicate professionally, and operate within the boundaries of acceptable workplace conduct.
If they can't do that, you're not dealing with a conflict issue anymore. You're dealing with a performance issue. And that's a different process with different stakes.
Facilitating Open Communication and Mediation with Employees Who Do Not Get Along
Once you've met with each employee separately and set clear expectations, it's time to bring them together. But not to "work it out." That's not your job. Your job is to facilitate a conversation focused on work, not feelings.
Start the meeting by reiterating the purpose. "We're here to address the communication breakdown that's affecting project delivery. My expectation is that we leave this meeting with a clear understanding of how you'll work together going forward."
Let each person explain their perspective without interruption. Your role is to keep the conversation focused on behavior and impact, not intent or character. When someone starts with "They always..." or "They never..." redirect immediately.
Try this: "Let's focus on specific examples. What happened on the project last Tuesday?"
As you facilitate, look for patterns. Are both people operating with different assumptions about who owns what? Is there a process gap that's creating friction? Is one person consistently missing deadlines and the other person covering for them and resenting it?
Most conflict has a root cause that's operational, not personal. Someone doesn't understand their role. Someone thinks they're in charge when they're not. Someone's been picking up slack for so long they've forgotten it wasn't originally their job. Someone's making decisions unilaterally that should be collaborative.
Your job is to surface that root cause and fix it. That might mean clarifying roles. Redefining decision rights. Creating a communication protocol. Adjusting workload. Whatever the fix is, make it concrete and measurable.
End the meeting with commitments from both employees. Not vague promises to "communicate better." Actual commitments with timelines.
"By Friday, you will document all open tasks in the shared system. By Monday, you will review that list together and flag any conflicts or dependencies. If there's disagreement, you will escalate to me before making unilateral decisions."
Document the commitments. Send a follow-up email summarizing what was agreed to. Make it clear this isn't optional. And then follow up. Because if you don't, you've just taught them that your standards are negotiable.
When managers ask how to handle two employees not getting along, they usually want a magic script that makes everyone happy. There isn't one. But there is a process that works. And it starts with understanding that your job is to create clarity, enforce standards, and protect the team from dysfunction. Not to make people like each other.
Monitoring Progress and Providing Ongoing Support
The follow-up is what separates managers who manage outcomes from managers who hope for the best. If you don't check in, document progress, and hold people accountable to the commitments they made, the conflict will resurface. And when it does, it'll be worse.
Set a specific date for your first check-in. Two weeks is usually enough time to see whether behavior is changing. Use that meeting to review what's working and what isn't.
Ask specific questions:
- Have communication timelines been met?
- Are handoffs happening smoothly?
- Has the quality of work improved?
- Are other team members noticing a difference?
If the answer is yes, acknowledge the progress. If the answer is no, revisit the expectations and clarify consequences. This is not the time to soften your standards or extend grace indefinitely. Either the behavior is improving or it's not. If it's not, you're moving to progressive discipline.
Progressive discipline isn't punishment. It's predictability. It's the system that tells people exactly what happens when performance doesn't meet the standard. It protects employees by giving them a clear roadmap for improvement. It protects you by creating a defensible record of what you tried and when.
If one or both employees continue to struggle after you've clarified expectations and provided support, document it. Use the same neutral, fact-based approach you used in the initial conversations. Note what was expected, what actually happened, and what the impact was. No editorializing. No character assessments. Just data.
The documentation serves three purposes when you want to know how to handle two employees not getting along. First, it creates a record you can reference if the conflict escalates and you need to involve HR or legal. Second, it protects you from claims that you didn't address the issue or that you handled it inconsistently. Third, it reinforces accountability by showing employees that their behavior is being tracked and that consequences are real.
Some managers resist documentation because it feels adversarial. It's not. It's professional. And it's what allows you to make defensible decisions when the stakes get higher.
If you've done all of this and the conflict persists, you're no longer dealing with a conflict management issue. You're dealing with a performance issue or a conduct issue. At that point, the question isn't how to handle two employees not getting along. The question is whether one or both of them can meet the standards required to stay in the role.
That's a harder conversation. But it's the right one. And it's the conversation that protects your high performers, your operational capacity, and your ability to lead without constantly putting out fires.
The Hard Truth About Employees Not Getting Along and Conflict Management
Most training on how to handle two employees not getting along focuses on empathy, communication, and relationship-building. Those things matter. But they don't matter more than accountability.
When two employees can't work together professionally, it's rarely because they don't understand each other. It's because expectations are unclear, consequences are inconsistent, or one or both of them are being allowed to operate outside the standards everyone else is held to.
Your job as a manager isn't to make everyone get along. Your job is to make sure work gets done to a standard that doesn't compromise quality, timeliness, or team cohesion. If two people can deliver on that standard without being friends, that's fine. If they can't, you address the performance gap with the same rigor you'd use for any other issue.
Conflict is a necessary byproduct of human interaction because of the data it provides. It specifically tells you where your systems are failing, where communication isn't clear, where accountability has softened and, where someone's been getting away with behavior that wouldn't be tolerated from anyone else.
The managers who know how to handle two employees not getting along are the ones who see conflict as diagnostic, not destructive. They don't avoid it. They use it to rebuild structure. They don't try to fix people. They fix what allows dysfunction to thrive.
That work is harder than mediation. It's harder than telling people to "just be professional." But it's the work that actually changes outcomes. And outcomes are the only thing that matters.
Ready to build conflict management capability in your leadership team? Most managers fail at this because they were never taught the mechanics of documentation, accountability, and progressive discipline. I'll walk your team through scenario-based training that focuses on real conversations, measurable standards, and defensible decisions. Texas municipalities and private-sector clients see reduction in escalations within 90 days. Book a 30-minute consult to map your current gaps and get a custom rollout plan.
Frequently Asked Questions
Start by gathering facts, not feelings. Meet with each employee separately and focus on observable behavior, missed commitments, and the impact on work outcomes. Document everything. Your goal is to understand where the process broke down, not to adjudicate who's right.
Mediation works only after you've set clear expectations and gathered enough information to understand the root cause. Your job isn't to repair a relationship. It's to enforce professional standards and ensure work gets done without disruption.
Focus on behavior and impact, not personality or intent. Record what was expected, what actually happened, and the consequences. Use neutral language. Avoid subjective assessments. The employee documentation should be something you could defend in front of HR, legal, or a jury if necessary.
Involve HR immediately if the conflict involves potential harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or safety concerns. For performance-based conflicts, involve HR when progressive discipline is warranted or when you need support enforcing policy consistently.
If behavior doesn't improve after you've clarified expectations and provided support, move to progressive discipline. Document the lack of progress and escalate to formal corrective action. At that point, you're addressing a performance issue, not a conflict issue.
You can't fire someone for personality differences as that can put your organization at risk of potential EEOC violations, but you can terminate for failure to meet professional standards, refusal to follow directives, or conduct that disrupts operations. The key is documentation showing you addressed the issue and the employee failed to improve. I provide a step-by-step walkthrough on how you can use a termination checklist that can help you get started.
Set a specific timeline based on the severity of the issue. Two weeks is standard for initial follow-up. If there's no improvement, escalate. Don't let conflict linger indefinitely hoping it resolves itself.
About the Author
Dr. Thomas W. Faulkner is the founder and principal consultant of Faulkner HR Solutions, a Texas-based firm specializing in strategic HR, leadership development, and organizational performance. His work focuses on building management capability that reduces liability, turnover, and escalations by teaching leaders how to document, enforce standards, and make defensible decisions under pressure.
Through frameworks like Bounded Agility and Competency Debt, Dr. Faulkner has helped municipalities and private companies across Texas build systems that protect people and make work function the way it should.
Learn more at faulknerhrsolutions.info.