Dangerous Transitions: Mixing the Interpersonal with the Group in the Workplace

The Challenge of Separating the Personal from the Workplace

One of the biggest challenges in the professional environment is managing the boundaries between different types of communication.

For many people, the difference between interpersonal and group communication is not clear, which often makes it difficult to separate personal and work.

On a day-to-day basis, it is natural for work colleagues to develop friendships, which means that they constantly transition between a group (objective and role-based) and an interpersonal (affective and subjective) mode of communication.

This transition is understandable, but also dangerous, as confusion between the two types of interaction is one of the most common sources of conflict and misunderstanding in an organization.

Why bringing subjectivity into an objective environment can be problematic

Group communication, to be effective, requires objectivity. Its purpose is to achieve a goal or complete a task, and the focus must be on the "object" (the project, the report, the sale).

In contrast, interpersonal communication draws on subjectivity and affectivity, focusing on individuals and their feelings.

The problem arises when we import the characteristics of the interpersonal mode into the group mode.

Introducing favoritism, personal grudges, or basing professional decisions on personal sympathy or antipathy (affective elements) contaminates the objectivity of the process.

This can lead to unfair decisions, biased evaluations and the erosion of trust and professionalism within the team.

The risk of treating a colleague as a friend in a performance appraisal

A clear example of this dangerous mix is the performance appraisal.

This is a quintessential group communication event: it is objective (metrics-based), scheduled (agendized) and role-based (manager and employee).

If a manager has a friendly relationship with a subordinate, he or she may fall into the trap of approaching the appraisal from an interpersonal framework.

For fear of damaging the friendship, he or she might soften a necessary criticism, avoid difficult issues, or inflate a rating.

In doing so, the manager fails in his or her professional role, deprives the employee of a real opportunity for growth and, in the long run, harms both the individual and the team by failing to maintain performance standards.

Strategies for keeping boundaries clear

The key to avoiding these problems is not to prohibit friendships at work, but to manage transitions consciously.

A mature communicator knows how to apply the following strategies:

Context Awareness: Before each interaction, consciously identify its nature. Is it a project meeting (group) or a lunch conversation (potentially interpersonal)?

Role Adjustment: Learn to "change hats." Within the meeting, your role is that of colleague, leader or subordinate, and communication must be objective. Outside that context, you can assume the role of friend.

Language Adaptation: Use language focused on facts, data and objectives in group situations. Reserve more personal and affective language for appropriate times and spaces.

This active boundary management is critical to maintaining professional integrity and healthy relationships.

Summary

In the professional environment, it is challenging to manage the boundaries between interpersonal (affective) and group (objective) communication. Confusion between the two types is one of the most common sources of conflict in an organization.

The problem arises when importing subjectivity and affectivity from the interpersonal mode to the group mode, which demands objectivity. Introducing favoritism, grudges or basing decisions on sympathy pollutes the process, leading to biased evaluations and eroding trust.

The key is not to prohibit friendships, but to manage transitions consciously. This involves being aware of the context, knowing how to "change hats" to adjust the role, and adapting language to each specific situation.