A Sitcom Mindset Can Reframe Workplace Conflict and Ease Tension

Workplace friction can feel less consuming when you change the story you tell yourself about it. One writer’s approach is to picture a tense office dynamic as a sitcom: colleagues become recognizable characters, awkward encounters become scenes, and you get more choice in how you respond. The conflict may still be real, but it no longer has to dictate your mood.

The idea has particular relevance in workplaces where people with different priorities depend on one another. A 2019 survey of more than 7,000 employees by Totaljobs, a United Kingdom job listing platform, found that almost 50 percent of those polled had at least one workplace enemy. Forty-three percent said they had more than one, while almost 10 percent viewed most of their colleagues as enemies. Those figures describe respondents’ perceptions, not a measure of how often conflicts occur or how they affect performance. Still, they point to a familiar strain: difficult working relationships are common enough to shape many employees’ daily experience.

Turning a colleague into a character

The sitcom framing starts by treating yourself as the protagonist in your own story. That can make a routine workday seem more vivid and help you notice details that frustration tends to push aside. It also invites a little distance: instead of reacting as if every exchange defines the relationship, you can observe the people involved and the patterns they repeat.

The source uses Seinfeld’s Jerry and Newman as an example. They are neighbors, share a friend in Kramer, and repeatedly cross paths despite their mutual dislike. Their relationship becomes comic material in part because their differences are so pronounced. Jerry’s familiar “Hello, Newman” greeting captures how a recurring clash can become a recognizable bit within a larger story.

That doesn’t make antagonism harmless, and the framing won’t settle a disagreement on its own. Its potential value is narrower: it may help someone pause before assigning a colleague a single, fixed role as an enemy. Humor and curiosity can make room to consider what else is true about that person, while leaving the underlying issue visible.

Barbara, recast as a sitcom frenemy

For the writer, Barbara is a colleague who uses fear to push others, communicates passive-aggressively, loses her temper, and questions the writer’s credentials. The writer also worries that Barbara could undermine their role in a project to gain more control. These are concrete concerns about trust and influence; presenting them as a comic plotline doesn’t erase their workplace consequences.

But the writer’s alternative portrait includes details that complicate the picture. Barbara has a distinctive Southern accent that brings levity to conversations. Her temper is predictable enough that the writer can sometimes head off a flare-up. She is protective of her team, highly intelligent, and capable of offering unexpected insight. The writer can imagine winning her over as a possible turn in the story.

This shift replaces a one-dimensional label with a fuller set of observations. Some details are strengths; others are difficult habits the writer has learned to anticipate. The distinction matters: recognizing a colleague’s positive traits doesn’t require pretending that their conduct is acceptable. It can, however, make it easier to approach interactions with a steadier sense of what to expect and where the relationship might have room to change.

What the framing can and can’t change

The writer says the practice helped them feel more control over both the relationship and their own mood. They couldn’t choose every event at work, but they could choose how much energy to give workplace drama. In that sense, the sitcom idea is a personal tool for managing perspective, not a formal method for resolving conflict or a substitute for addressing serious behavior.

For people trying it, the useful move is to observe before turning a colleague into a punchline. What specific behaviors make an interaction hard? What qualities or motivations might also be present? Which situations tend to trigger tension, and what response helps you stay composed? Those questions keep the lens grounded in what you’ve actually seen. They also guard against using humor to dismiss someone’s impact or to excuse conduct that needs to be addressed.

There is a limit to how much reframing can do. A clever internal narration may soften the sting of an awkward exchange, but it can’t guarantee that another person will become more trustworthy or supportive. Nor does a more generous interpretation remove the need to protect your role, communicate clearly, or seek practical ways to handle recurring problems. The approach is most useful when it gives you enough distance to choose your next response deliberately.

The writer developed this perspective for interactions with both friendly coworkers and people they regarded as adversaries. Their account suggests that the same shift can change how a person experiences everyday contact, even when they can’t control the other person’s behavior. In a workplace where colleagues must keep working together, that small increase in perspective may be consequential: a tense relationship can remain difficult without taking over the whole story.

This essay was excerpted from Timm Chiusano’s book, How to Get Addicted to Appreciation.

Timm Chiusano is a TED speaker, author, EQ coach, Webby Award-winning creator, and former Fortune executive. His workplace perspective offers a simple takeaway: noticing a colleague’s full range of traits may help you manage your own reactions, even when the relationship itself remains unresolved.