Our relationships with colleagues at work range from friendship to hatred, and sometimes a combination of the two. The English language has even coined a new word, “frenemy” – something between “friend” and “enemy. What happens in this ambiguous gray area of office relationships, and why does it happen?
Most of us have sincere friends whose conversations make each workday a little more enjoyable, and equally sincere enemies who, for some reason (or no reason at all), try to make our lives as miserable as possible. But who are these people who occupy a place somewhere in the middle? Such colleagues are capable of listening sympathetically to your complaints and then gossiping behind your back. Or they will stand up for you when you are being criticized and, without batting an eye, take credit for all the accomplishments of the joint project. They both help and hurt. In short, they are “frenemies”, “friends-enemies”.
In the past, psychologists tended to see relationships within a group as black or white, ignoring numerous intermediate states. But recent research suggests that “friends and enemies” have as much or more influence on our moral well-being, behavior, and health. By understanding these difficulties, we can build smarter office relationships and avoid stress.
Mountains of scientific literature have been written about the benefits of friendship. Good relationships with others increase self-esteem, help people cope with difficulties more easily, and reduce the risk of mental and physical illness and even premature death. Not surprisingly, bad relationships have the opposite effect. Communicating with colleagues or family members who constantly insult us is detrimental to our health. But it is only in the last 10 years or so that scientists have begun to study how people who are our friends today but may become our enemies tomorrow, or vice versa, affect our lives.
Participants in the study were asked to rate on a six-point scale the extent to which their interactions with certain acquaintances were supportive or, on the contrary, disruptive. As a result, each person’s acquaintances can be divided into three groups. Friends, as defined by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, professor of psychology and neurology at Brigham Young University, are those whose positive influence people rate two or more points and whose negative influence they rate one point or less. The opposite is true for enemies. Those who score two or more in both categories are considered ambivalent. Based on this assessment, Holt-Lunstad and other researchers were able to determine how relationships with “frenemies” differed from all others. Out of naivete, one might assume that they have no effect: the benefits and harms balance each other out. But that’s not true.
Sworn friends will stand up for you, but then they will love to gossip behind your back. We explain quickly, simply, and clearly what happened, why it matters, and what happens next. Episodes The end of the story: Advertising in Podcasts In numerous experiments over a period of 10 years, Holt-Lunstad found that communicating with “frenemies” more often caused stress and increased the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The problem is its unpredictability. Today someone will praise and support you, but what will happen tomorrow is unknown. It’s like being in a constant state of suspense. Unexpected hostility or indifference hurts more than when it comes from obvious enemies.
Holt-Lunstad believes that everyone has about the same number of “friend enemies” as friends, and is surprised that many sociologists and psychologists ignore this fact. “The importance of the quality of human relationships is recognized by everyone, but it is still perceived as a simple opposition between good and bad,” says the scientist, who recently published an article summarizing the results of her work. “The influence of mixed contacts on health and well-being is underestimated.”
The phenomenon of “sworn friends” has not been thoroughly researched, and there is even less understanding of their role in office politics. This is unfortunate because many professions contribute to the creation and maintenance of such relationships. “Organizations often force us to interact with people we would not normally interact with outside of work,” notes Shimal Melvani, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina who studies the atmosphere in work collectives. Competition adds negativity. You may think your colleague is a very pleasant person, and you’d love to have a drink with him, but you’d feel betrayed if he applied for the job you want. “People strive to outperform their colleagues in their careers while getting along with them, which is basically normal,” says Naomi Rothman, associate professor of management at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.
In September 2021, Melvani and Rotman published a joint paper dedicated to the dynamics of these processes. In one experiment, they first asked participants to answer a series of personal questions from strangers, including telling them about their greatest accomplishments and what they were most proud of. Such a process, which psychologists call “fast friendship,” is known to quickly create an emotional bond between people.
“Friend-enemies sometimes get on your nerves more than outright evil-doers.” After a short time, the experts added a new element to the experiment. One-third of the participants who had gotten to know each other were asked to maintain a positive tone and express what they liked about each other. Another third were given the opportunity to view the situation in a negative light and express what they did not like. The remaining participants were asked to evaluate the performance of their group partners and compare it to their own performance, thus introducing an element of competition into the game. Finally, each participant was asked to briefly describe the organization they work for, and their partner was asked to edit the text and, based on that, to provide two written reviews of the author – one for themselves and one confidential for psychologists.
As expected, members of the first group, where only pleasant things were said, tended to praise each other afterward. Members of the second group tended to criticize, and in the third group, where the atmosphere was competitive, participants developed mixed feelings about each other. This in turn had an interesting effect on their behavior. “Frenemies” who were forced to become competitors were much more active in taking control of other people’s work than were obvious friends and enemies. “In fact, they went much further than what they were asked to do,” Melvani says. In the same group, written reviews were the most different. Its participants were much more likely to say one thing to people face to face and to damage the reputation of others in front of the organizers.
Why did those who didn’t have the best feelings for each other put the least effort into polishing other people’s work – obviously they didn’t care. It is also clear that the “friend enemies” wanted to demonstrate good will and objectivity. But why did they outdo the “friends” who should be inclined to cooperate? Melvani explains this phenomenon by the feeling of inner embarrassment among “friends-enemies”. With exaggerated warmth and a desire to improve the other’s work, they tried to smooth over their own irritation and dissatisfaction (which the partner may not even have deserved) and appear better in the eyes of the organizers.
In another experiment, Melvani and Rotman surveyed retail workers about their relationships with coworkers. Those who sought not to isolate themselves from the “friend-enemy” but to get closer to them were found to be the most likely to both help and hinder their work. In other words, positive intentions strengthen both components of ambiguous relationships. “This accentuates the ambivalence,” Melvani explains.
Managers should pay attention to the results of these experiments, she says. Bosses should try to reduce the level of competition among subordinates, which mainly creates conflict, and encourage the creation of a cooperative atmosphere. As for ordinary employees, Melvani believes that a deeper understanding of the psychology of complex communication partners will help build the right relationships with them. People have short memories, and their feelings toward “friends-foes” change greatly depending on the specific actions of the latter. One should not be surprised here, but understand that “enmity-friendship” is a normal and long-lasting thing, evaluate the pros and cons of interacting with such people soberly, and depend less on their respect and attachment. Let’s recall Melvani and Rotman’s point that the desire to get closer inevitably intensifies ambivalence. If your relationship with someone begins to burden you, you need to be more realistic in your expectations, without completely eliminating that person from your life. Sometimes you have to accept that a person will never become your friend, but it is still worth having a relationship with them – at a reasonable distance.