Reading Time: 7 minutes
I had the lawn mower out over the weekend. We had a brief respite from the heat and the rain and the new sod we’d put down needed a trim. As I was finishing up, my neighbor came out with his mower and a similar mindset and we got to chatting. We’ve lived here for over a year now and we are fortunate to have good neighbors. I picked up a bit of scuttlebutt about the neighborhood and what his family was up to, swapped opinions on lawn hardware, and then both got back to our chores. I’m grateful for a good neighbor. We are constantly in contact with people in our lives and we can’t always choose who we live next to and work beside. When those relationships are sour, they can rot everything else.
There was an interesting piece by a professor from the University of Mississippi over on The Conversation. Dr. Mower discussed her research into conflict resolution and civility and her experience changed her thinking: it takes two to tango.
But standing there in the kitchen, holding the lawyer’s letter about restraining my dog, it hit me that civility isn’t possible if one party won’t engage.
Perhaps this point seems obvious. Everyone knows that negotiations between warring parties can stall, couples counseling can fail and bitter disputes can extend into generational family feuds. I had always assumed these stalled negotiations were due to failures of civility.
But this situation with my neighbor differed entirely from those other types of failures. My neighbor not only refused to talk to me, but started routing all communication through a high-priced third party. In this case, only one party showed up to talk – and that was a different kind of problem.
In that moment, I realized that civility also required a certain kind of motivation.
Civility requires the willingness to engage – a dispute with a neighbor revealed how much motivation matters, Deborah Mower, July 2, 2026, The Conversation
I think we can forget that when we have a power dynamic or we think that we have a shared cause or understanding. I was talking about this with someone who was trying to help repair an external relationship. Their suggestion was to put the two people in the same room and have them talk to each other. That isn’t nothing but it’s not enough. My comment to them was that you can’t make people feel something. Even as a manager, you can’t make people think in a certain way. The best you can do is create an environment where they are comfortable, and more likely than not, to act and have the mindset you desire. But it will always be a choice they have to make themselves.
There are managers who literally yell and scream and micro manage and do surprise check-ins. They think that they can make employees work the way they want. And perhaps, for a time, they can. But fear isn’t a strategy and it will come with a staggering cost to the organization and the people involved.
In the workplace, we assume a certain level of civility. A few of my Canadian colleagues knew me as Mr. No. That reflected my willingness to decline to take on projects or assume responsibilities, but even those refusals were done in what I’m confident was a civil way. In fact, learning to say no in a way that is healthy is a necessary skill for anyone who has a job with autonomy.
The absence of that civility can lead to all sorts of problems but even falling short of a failure, poor communication and collaboration can be awful. In a workplace, they can make life pretty miserable. One recurring theme I’ve heard in my career is about IT teams, who are so hard to work with—condescending, unhelpful, operating without understanding their impact on users—that teams work around them. There’s a reason that shadow IT has a name. This is an easy example of these relationships getting out of balance, where communication isn’t happening. But, in many cases, civility still reigns if only to keep HR off everyone’s back.
Assume the Best
Neighbors are a different matter entirely. The investment in and connection to a property, whether rental or owned, is substantial. In some ways, it may be easier or more desirous to get a new job than a new home. This is our fifth house but I’ve lived at about 15 different addresses. Every one of them had neighbors. Some were great and some were awful.
It’s not just neighbors. Wherever you have relationships without a hierarchy, there is a need for give and take. Even in families: in perhaps the most Canadian legal book I’ve ever seen, kids who grew up going to the cottage may fall out when they have to share it as adults.
It may be worth noting here that I fake a lot of the banter and good cheer. Not the emotion of connection. But I really don’t know anything about lawn mowers or pressure washers, let alone things like sports (Bear down sounds like a wildlife emergency). I know that, for small talk, there’s usually no other investment other than to listen and contribute where possible, and to be kind and compassionate if necessary. Oh, and be willing to discuss puttering.
I’m a big believer in “good fences make good neighbors”. Not just in space but in relationships as well: being clear about who is responsible for what, and what shared means. Managers can provide that sort of demarcation with work by using priorities and regular communication to help people understand what they are accountable for.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.Mending Wall, Robert Frost, 1914 (more on the poem)
I arrived the first time late at night at this house in which we currently live. Our neighbor was going up his back path and yelled out, to see if I was a Realtor
. We both approached the fence, which I can reach over and lean on, shook hands, and had a good natter. It was an auspicious beginning and, while we share a fence—to keep the dog in our yard, to keep our wildness out of their lawn—it is less a barrier than an acknowledgement of space.
Frankly, it’s more than I need. We have lived many places for years at a time without seeing the inside of the next door neighbor’s home or even being invited into their back garden or private space. That is completely fine. My life isn’t dependent upon the threads woven with those who are physically proximate to me.
This is true at work as well. Civility carries a lot of that weight but also I do not look to the workplace for family or friends. Hopefully never the former, but the latter is at most a nice to have. It is one reason I tend to be reticent about talking about my home life and family when at work. I see the spaces as distinct and the people and things and experiences that inhabit them separate. If anything, there is a one directional flow where stories and characters from outside our home are discussed within it.
I tend to assume, at work and in other life relationships, that people will make the best effort out of their own self-interest if nothing else. No one wants to go to work anxious or to flit in and out of their home avoiding their neighbors. I have been fortunate that, in those situations where someone’s self-interest was tied to conflict, that those situations tended to reach a resolution, one way or another.
Go Along, Get Along
A resolution does not mean that anyone has to pull up stakes, figuratively or literally. But as Dr. Mower points out, it only works with two people willing to put in the work. I worked at an organization where there was notorious animosity between a few staff. It was impacting their work as well as the team dynamic and in the end I had to initiate a performance improvement plan (PIP) for an employee.
In many organizations, doing that is a bit like the neighbor lawyering up in Dr. Mower’s situation. The assumption is that the PIP is a tool to get rid of someone. I realize that, on its face, that’s not what it is but every organization I’ve worked at, and every staff person I’ve talked to about being on one, as has seen it as a way to force an employee out. My own experience with them is somewhat different, although the outcomes may not be substantially different.
One helpful use for the PIP is that it can, when you have someone whose behavior is negatively impacting their work, re-focus self-interest away from conflict. If the employee really doesn’t want to be there, they now can see that departure is an option and a choice for them to make. At the same time, an employee who didn’t realize their impact may be open to avoiding making that choice.
The PIP has tended to fail as a tool for me when it had to be implemented and came as a surprise. Not always, but that’s where it was most difficult. In one situation, though, it gave a framework for me to talk with an employee and air a lot of laundry, issues that pre-dated my joining the organization, and to recalibrate our communication. They wanted to talk but I think they also feel like someone wanted to listen. As we moved forward with the PIP, they decided to leave but I am as certain as I can be that this approach was the difference between a lawsuit and what was, in the end, a relatively amicable parting.
My current neighbors are chalk and cheese. Both friendly on sight but, on the one side, we rarely interact beyond a wave, and we know each other’s names. Totally fine. On the other side, there is both more opportunity: the neighbor wants to be neighborly.
I think the phrase go along to get along can be seen as perjorative. That’s true if it means that one is giving up on one’s own beliefs to placate bad actors or those in conflict. More importantly, I think it means to consider compromise, especially on things that really don’t matter to you. It can also be seen as a way to get along with others that you are moving in parallel to. Like your coworkers, like your neighbors.
I have posted before about my feelings about modern planting. I think mowed lawns are an abomination and golf courses should be bulldozed for forests. There is nothing that pleases me more than plants and critters in as chaotic a display as possible. You may call them weeds but they’re all potential flowers to me. But if I gave in to my preferences entirely, I am sure my neighbors would lawyer up or at least engage in some passive aggressive actions.
So I dial back my preferences while also communicating them to my neighbor (also, our fenced back garden is a perfect place for me to stretch my gardening interests without impinging upon what the neighbors can see). He is a yardener: lawn mowed, edge trimmed, grass clippings out of sight. As I explained to him, that will never be me and I’m sorry (not sorry) about the dandelions that I love letting grow. He took it in stride and, our yards being so narrow, asked if I minded if he trimmed our lawn edges after I mowed? I told him I didn’t mind at all if that made him happy and he was already about it. I didn’t say it but I intend to shovel some of his snow come winter to reciprocate.
We are fortunate to have such good neighbors. I’m not sure we will ever get to the point where we’re in each other’s houses or gardens. But I’m glad we have people we can communicate with and be friendly towards. You can’t make people want to be neighborly, any more than you can make them want to be anything. All we can both do is create the best conditions for each of us to want to be good neighbors.