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. In fact, studies show that US employees spend 2.8 hours per week involved with conflict, which amounts to approximately $359 billion in paid hours annually [1]. This isn't just a morale issue; it's a massive drain on your bottom line.
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. This is a core component of effective leadership development.
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. This is a critical aspect of HR compliance.
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.
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 getting it wrong, you create a culture of anxiety and resentment. This is a common failure pattern I see in organizational development.
The Cost of Ignoring Conflict
Ignoring conflict is not a strategy; it's a liability. When managers fail to address interpersonal issues, the costs compound rapidly. Here is a breakdown of how unresolved conflict impacts an organization:
| Impact Area | Description | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Productivity Loss | Time spent navigating around the conflict, gossiping, or redoing work. | Estimated 2.8 hours per employee per week lost to conflict. |
| Employee Turnover | High performers leave toxic environments where conflict is unmanaged. | Increased recruitment and training costs; loss of institutional knowledge. |
| Legal Liability | Unresolved conflict can escalate into harassment or discrimination claims. | Costly settlements, legal fees, and damage to company reputation. |
| Team Morale | Other team members become disengaged and frustrated by the tension. | Decreased overall team performance and engagement. |
In my experience consulting across Texas, organizations that proactively manage conflict see a significant improvement in employee retention and overall productivity.
When to Escalate to HR
While managers should handle most day-to-day conflicts, there are specific triggers that require immediate HR involvement. Do not attempt to manage these situations on your own:
- Allegations of Harassment or Discrimination: If an employee claims they are being targeted based on a protected class (race, gender, age, religion, etc.), HR must step in immediately to conduct a formal investigation.
- Threats of Violence or Safety Concerns: Any mention of physical harm or unsafe working conditions requires immediate escalation.
- Retaliation: If an employee claims they are being punished for reporting an issue or participating in an investigation, HR must be involved.
- Consistent Failure to Improve: When you have documented the behavior, set clear expectations, and the employee still fails to meet the standard, HR should be involved in the progressive discipline process.
Knowing when to escalate is just as important as knowing how to handle the initial conversation. It protects both the employees and the organization.
A Texas Case Study: The Cost of Avoidance
Consider a mid-sized manufacturing company in Texas. Two shift supervisors, let's call them John and Sarah, had a long-standing feud. They constantly undermined each other, delayed handoffs, and created a toxic environment for their respective teams. The plant manager, hoping they would "work it out," ignored the issue for months.
The result? Production slowed down by 15%, safety incidents increased due to poor communication, and three key operators quit, citing the toxic environment. It wasn't until the plant manager implemented a structured accountability process—documenting the specific behaviors, setting clear expectations for handoffs, and enforcing consequences—that the situation improved. But the damage was already done. The cost of replacing those three operators and the lost production time far exceeded the discomfort of having a difficult conversation early on.
This is why new manager training must include practical, scenario-based conflict resolution strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the first step in how to handle two employees not getting along?
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.
Should I try to mediate between two employees who aren't getting along?
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.
How do I document conflict between employees?
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.
When should I involve HR in employee conflict?
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.
What if the conflict continues after I've addressed it?
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.
Can I fire someone for not getting along with a coworker?
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.
How long should I give employees to resolve conflict?
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.