Personality refers to the unique, relatively stable patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviours that each of us has and that distinguishes us from one another. Our personalities are deeply rooted in our genetics and neurobiology and are also shaped by our environments. Personality differences can be thought of as the variations in how individuals think, feel, and behave, and are a structural feature of any team. Unfortunately, in high-pressure environments, these differences can become a source of friction that drains people’s energy and erodes collaboration.
As we all know, rural and remote health work is built on interdependence. Working in small teams, prolonged proximity, and a shared professional purpose mean how team members relate to one another can affect the day-to-day experience of work (and life) itself. If it’s ‘working’, then great! If not, work can be a really unpleasant place. In turn, this impacts workforce stability and the quality of care provided to patients/clients.
It is not the personality differences themselves that are the problem. Rather, it’s how the team works with and holds those differences that influences outcomes. Rather than pathologising someone’s differences with judgments, look at these differences with curiosity and deliberate attention to style and communication. For example, if someone likes to pay attention to detail in their work, they are often labelled as “OCD”, which is a statement that also activates a number of stereotypical assumptions and biases in our minds.
Not all workplace tensions stem from a values conflict or a problematic colleague. A lot of the interpersonal friction that builds up in health teams can be traced back to differences in working style; that is, the pace at which people process information, the way they prefer to communicate, or how they approach structure and uncertainty. By understanding what lies beneath these common friction points, we can interrupt our thoughts from sliding from “this feels difficult” to “this person is difficult”. Below are some common differences in working style that can create friction.
Detail-oriented vs big-picture thinkers. Some people think in terms of possibilities within systems, whilst others think in terms of specifics and processes within those systems. When a big-picture colleague moves quickly from problem to solution, a detail-oriented colleague may think of this as reckless or careless and be dismissive of considerations that need to be taken into account to make that solution work. Alternatively, thorough step-by-step reasoning and documentation can feel like an unnecessary delay to someone thinking of the outcome from a big-picture perspective. Underneath it all, there is usually a shared goal of getting it right, just expressed in entirely different ways of thinking.
Fast-paced vs methodical workers. In high-demand rural and remote settings, pace mismatches can cause significant friction. A colleague who moves quickly through tasks may see a more methodical peer as slow or resistant, whilst the methodical worker may see the fast-paced colleague as careless or pressuring. Both speed and thoroughness are strengths in healthcare, but without some joint recognition of this, it can become a source of resentment.
Emotionally expressive vs reserved communicators. People vary greatly in how much of their internal experience they bring into professional interactions. People who like to process aloud, visibly show their frustration, or seek regular check-ins can feel exhausting or unprofessional to someone whose style is to remain contained. Conversely, the reserved colleague may appear cold, rude, disengaged or hard to read. Neither way is the ‘right’ way to be at work; they are just different ways people manage the emotional demands of the role.
Autonomy-seeking vs collaboration-preferring workers. Some people do their best work when they have a clear scope and minimal interruptions, whilst others like to think problems through with others and have shared decision-making. This difference can create friction, as one person may wonder why they weren’t included, while someone else wonders why everything requires a conversation. In small rural and remote teams where boundaries are often blurred, this mismatch can become a continued source of unmet expectations.
These judgements and frustrations can be explained by the fundamental attribution error: the tendency of people to overestimate the effect of personality and underestimate the effect of circumstances when viewing another person’s behaviour. We tend to judge others by their behaviour, and ourselves by our circumstances.¹ We possibly do this as we are ‘actors’ in our own lives and are fully aware of the pressures and situations we face. However, when we observe others, we only see their actions, and the situations may be invisible or underappreciated. Culture also plays a role, as people from individualistic cultures are more likely to assume that the individual bears full responsibility for their actions, whereas those from collectivist cultures are more likely to consider the person’s situation as a reason for their behaviour.
Next time you notice yourself making a snap judgement about a colleague’s character, become aware of this and acknowledge that it was just that, a reactive judgement. Hold space for an alternative interpretation of what might be going on for that person. The colleague who interrupts may not be dominating, but engaging in their own way. The one who goes quiet in a meeting may not be disengaged, just processing what’s being said.
Working well with different personalities is not a matter of liking everyone equally or of smoothing over genuine differences (often hoping they’ll go away!). Holding space for alternative interpretations is a practical skill that can be developed through deliberate attention to how we interpret others’ behaviour, how we communicate our own needs, and how we build team norms that make differences between colleagues workable.
The teams that navigate differences well are not the ones without friction, but the ones who have learned to work with it.
Be kind,
Dr Nicole Jeffery-Dawes (she/her)
Senior Psychologist, Mental Health and Wellbeing.
- Ungvarsky, J. (2020). Fundamental attribution error (social psychology). EBSCO. Accessed 6th July 2026 at https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/psychology/fundamental-attribution-error-social-psychology
