Although most managers believe that they give each of their team members equal attention, respect, and consideration, four decades' worth of empirical research says otherwise. Studies show that nearly all bosses have-or are seen to have-in-groups and out-groups. Employees on the wrong side of these divides experience a reduction in engagement, satisfaction, commitment, citizenship, innovation, and performance. Bosses usually argue that any differentiation is unintended and that their reports are reading too much into minor disparities. Both claims might be true. However, it is the view from below that counts. Perceived unfairness is real in its consequences. Managers should first acknowledge these issues and then work hard to head off or repair conflict. Those who don't may lose key contributors they'd prefer to retain, exacerbate the challenges presented by underperformers, ruin team performance and morale, and hurt their own reputations. Start by regularly reviewing your treatment of team members. Ask yourself: Did I seek everyone's company? Did I acknowledge their capabilities? Did I assist their growth? If you are routinely answering no for certain subordinates, they need more attention from you. When a relationship has already gone off the rails, it's important to rectify the problem: Prepare for a direct conversation, engage empathetically, and then make a plan for how you'll interact with one another in the future.

Too often, teams struggle to collaborate effectively because of destructive conflict within the group. While respectful differences of opinion can yield positive change, a perceived incompatibility between how different people think or act can have a serious impact on productivity and work culture. Based on team dynamics research as well as their personal experience working with executive teams, the authors propose a new approach for leaders to proactively address conflict in the workplace and lay the foundation for effective collaboration. Before tackling any specific work issue, they suggest that team leaders facilitate conversations about how people look, act, speak, think, and feel, in order to build a shared understanding of the process - rather than the content - of the team's work.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Traits that benefit an executive in one position often do not work well in another position. Moving into new roles or environments, executives may need to play up or rein in different facets of their personalities. Strengths can become weaknesses. Psychologists have identified countless traits distinguishing us from one another. But recent research has converged toward five broad dimensions, each comprising a cluster of traits that account for the majority of the differences among individual personalities. These dimensions have been dubbed the Big Five: need for stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Drawing on their extensive coaching work with senior executives, the authors identify common leadership pitfalls associated with high and low scores on each of the Big Five personality dimensions, as well as potential solutions. For example, executives who tend to dominate group settings -demonstrating high levels of extraversion -can practice the "four-sentence"rule: limiting whatever they have to say to four sentences. Executives who are too blunt or aggressive -demonstrating low levels of agreeableness -can practice the art of cushioning their criticisms with phrases such as "let me play devil's advocate for a moment"or "if I put on my critic's hat." Self-awareness, the authors conclude, is the inevitable starting point for managing one's psychological preferences. Without it, executives will struggle to evolve or find coping strategies. With it, leaders can learn where their natural inclinations lie -and they can boost or compensate for those inclinations, depending on the circumstances. The idea is not to undergo a personality change. It is to be yourself, with more skill.