“I thought they were the problem.”

Most workplace frustrations arrive with a clear explanation.

A difficult colleague.

A challenging manager.

A team member who creates tension.

Someone who seems unwilling to listen, collaborate, or communicate effectively.

When an interaction repeatedly leaves us feeling frustrated, it is natural to focus on the person in front of us.

After all, they are the most visible part of the experience.

We can point to specific behaviors.

Specific conversations.

Specific moments that support our conclusion.

And sometimes those observations are entirely valid.

Some workplace behaviors genuinely create difficulty.

Some people genuinely contribute to unhealthy dynamics.

But workplace dynamics are rarely as simple as identifying a single cause.

What makes a workplace interaction challenging is often more complex than the actions of one individual.

Because every workplace relationship exists within a dynamic.

A dynamic is created through interaction.

Through expectations.

Through assumptions.

Through communication.

Through the meaning people attach to each other’s behavior.

Over time, these interactions begin to form patterns.

Patterns influence what we anticipate.

What we notice.

What we overlook.

And how we respond.

This is where workplace experiences become particularly interesting.

Two people can walk away from the same interaction with completely different interpretations.

Each person convinced they understand what happened.

Each person responding to the version of the situation they experienced.

Neither necessarily seeing the full picture.

The challenge is that once we become convinced someone else is the problem, our attention naturally narrows.

We begin gathering evidence that supports our conclusion.

We notice the behaviors that confirm our assumptions.

We become less curious about what else may be contributing to the pattern.

This does not mean the other person is free from responsibility.

Nor does it mean we should excuse difficult behavior.

The point is not to shift blame from one person to another.

The point is to become curious about the dynamic itself.

Because workplace patterns often persist when people focus exclusively on the individual rather than the interaction.

A difficult relationship can become predictable.

One person’s defensiveness triggers another person’s frustration.

Frustration triggers withdrawal.

Withdrawal triggers assumptions.

Assumptions trigger further defensiveness.

Eventually, the pattern becomes so familiar that it feels permanent.

At that stage, people often stop seeing the dynamic.

They only see the person.

A useful shift occurs when the question changes.

Not:

“Who is the problem?”

But:

“What is happening between us?”

That question opens a different possibility.

It moves attention away from assigning fault and toward understanding the pattern that has developed.

Because patterns can be understood.

Patterns can be interrupted.

Patterns can change.

The same cannot always be said for people.

Many workplace challenges become easier to navigate when we recognize that relationships are shaped not only by who people are, but by how they repeatedly interact.

Sometimes the most significant shift occurs when we stop asking who is responsible for the dynamic.

And start becoming curious about the dynamic itself.

This is where reactivity gives way to presence — not by deciding who's right, but by understanding the pattern both people are sustaining.

Is there a workplace relationship where the same pattern keeps repeating, regardless of who you're dealing with?

This is the layer I work with clients on through Workplace Dynamics: The Reframe. If this resonates, I'd welcome a conversation — Join the Waitlist.