When an Engineering Office Turns into a Soap Opera

Engineering offices are typically known for precision, problem-solving, and collaboration—but every now and then, they’re also home to dramatic disagreements that could rival a daytime soap opera. A few years back, I found myself caught in one of these dramas, starring two of my reports: a supervisor named Jerry and his direct report, Leon (The names have been changed to protect their identity). Their never-ending bickering over design decisions was derailing projects and threatening to turn the entire office into Design Wars: Episode Infinity.

The problem? Jerry was all about precision and adhering to the design standards, while Leon loved pushing boundaries and suggesting changes—sometimes without consulting Jerry. They were constantly at each other’s throats, arguing over why Jerry’s designs didn’t need changes and why Leon’s tweaks were critical for project success. Their debates, which often spilled out of their cubicles, could have been entertaining if they weren’t so disruptive. It got to the point where the team started timing how long it would take for them to start bickering each morning.

One particularly heated argument over a minor design detail—a feeder routing decision that, frankly, wouldn’t have mattered to the client—was the final straw. I called both of them into my office and sat them down. I didn’t mince words. “You two are talented professionals, but this constant bickering? It’s killing productivity, and it’s driving the team nuts. If you can’t figure out how to work together respectfully, I’ll fire you both and hire a referee instead.”

The stunned silence that followed was glorious. Jerry and Leon looked at me, then at each other, realizing just how close they were to losing their jobs over something as trivial as a design preference. But I wasn’t done. “Look, I get it—Jerry, you want things done by the book. Leon, you like thinking outside the box. Neither approach is wrong. But if you can’t respect each other’s strengths and find a way to collaborate, we’re all going to lose.” With that, I threw down the gauntlet: “You’ve got 24 hours to figure out a plan for working together—or we’re having a much less friendly meeting tomorrow.” The next day, to my surprise, they came back not just with a truce, but with an actual plan. They decided that Jerry would be the final decision-maker on all design approvals, but Leon could propose changes with a structured process: detailed justifications and a collaborative review. Essentially, Leon had to stop “freestyling” on the designs, and Jerry had to be more open to considering alternatives.

To help seal the deal, I added a little humor. “Great! Now, Jerry, you can stop pretending Leon’s ideas are a personal attack, and Leon, you can stop trying to redesign the entire world on a whim. Let’s keep the arguments about your design preferences to a minimum, shall we?”

The result? Not only did they find a way to respect each other’s roles, but they also started working more effectively as a team. Jerry began to appreciate Leon’s innovative thinking, and Leon learned the value of process and standards. The bickering turned into productive discussions, and the rest of the team? They were eternally grateful for the newfound peace in the office.

Reflecting on How I Could Have Handled It Differently

While the outcome was ultimately positive, there were moments in the process where I could have approached things differently. For instance, instead of waiting until the conflict reached a boiling point, I could have addressed the tension earlier. Proactively scheduling one-on-one meetings with Jerry and Leon to understand their perspectives might have uncovered the root issues before they escalated.

Additionally, rather than threatening to fire them (though effective in this case), I could have framed the conversation with a focus on shared goals and the importance of collaboration for the success of the team and the organization. A softer approach, such as offering mediation earlier, could have prevented the tension from impacting team morale so heavily.

Lastly, I could have implemented ongoing check-ins or a structured conflict-resolution framework as part of our regular operations. This would have provided a space for concerns to be voiced and addressed constructively before they disrupted the workplace.

That said, sometimes a little tough love paired with humor is what’s needed to snap people out of a cycle of conflict. It’s all about finding the balance between compassion and accountability. And next time, maybe I’ll keep the referee whistle in my desk drawer—just in case.