When Employees Think the Manager Hates Them: Trust, Conflict and Fair Leadership

A manager may hear a difficult sentence: “He hates me,” “She is always against me,” or “The manager treats me differently.” The statement may reflect a real pattern, a misunderstanding, inconsistent communication, unresolved conflict, bias, pressure or several factors together. A responsible leader should neither dismiss it as oversensitivity nor accept it as fact without review.

The issue is not whether every employee likes the manager. Hospitality leaders must set standards, correct unsafe behaviour and make decisions that will not please everyone. But employees should be able to expect dignity, consistency, fair process and clear reasons. When people interpret normal management as personal dislike, trust and performance can deteriorate quickly.

This guide explains how a hospitality manager can examine the situation, repair communication and maintain standards without becoming defensive or lowering accountability.

Treat the perception as a signal

A perception is not always an accurate description of intent, but it is still information. Ask what created it.

Possible causes include:

• correction is frequent but recognition is absent;
• the manager’s tone changes under pressure;
• decisions appear inconsistent across employees;
• one person receives harder duties or fewer opportunities;
• the employee does not understand the standard or reason;
• earlier conflict was never closed;
• language or cultural differences affect interpretation;
• the employee feels excluded from information;
• the manager approaches the employee only when something is wrong;
• actual bullying, discrimination, harassment or retaliation may be occurring.

The manager should investigate the pattern, not argue about the word “hate.”

Know when an informal conversation is not enough

Use the organisation’s formal process and involve the authorised function when the concern includes:

• discrimination or harassment;
• threats, violence or intimidation;
• retaliation for reporting a concern;
• safeguarding or serious wellbeing risk;
• fraud, theft or serious misconduct;
• an active grievance or disciplinary case;
• a power conflict the manager cannot handle impartially;
• a legal or regulatory issue.

Do not promise secrecy that policy or law does not allow. Explain who may need to know and why.

Start with a manager self-audit

Before speaking to the employee, the manager should examine their own behaviour honestly.

Communication

• Do I contact this person mainly when something is wrong?
• Have I explained the standard and reason clearly?
• Do I use sarcasm, labels or public correction?
• Have I returned with updates on issues they raised?

Fairness

• Are workload, schedules, training and opportunities distributed using transparent criteria?
• Have I made similar decisions for similar situations?
• Could favouritism, bias or familiarity be affecting me?

Evidence

• What specific events created the concern?
• What records or witnesses exist?
• Am I relying on assumptions about attitude or personality?

Pressure

• Has my tone changed because of fatigue or stress?
• Am I transferring operational frustration to one employee?

Self-review does not mean the manager is automatically at fault. It improves the quality of the conversation.

The HCA RESET trust-repair method

HCA can use this as a practical teaching framework. It is not a legal process or universal industry standard.

R — Recognise the concern

Acknowledge the impact without admitting something that has not been established.

I understand that you feel my approach toward you has been negative and personal. I want to understand which situations created that impression.

Avoid:

That is ridiculous. I treat everyone the same.

E — Explore examples and perspectives

Ask for specific situations, words, actions and effects.

• What happened?
• When did you first notice the pattern?
• What did you understand my message or decision to mean?
• What response did you need at that time?
• Is there anything else affecting the relationship?

Listen fully and record facts accurately.

S — Separate facts, interpretations and standards

Identify:

• confirmed behaviour;
• different interpretations;
• the operational or conduct standard;
• missing information;
• any inconsistency or mistake;
• any issue that requires formal escalation.

Example:

The confirmed issue is that I corrected the late handover twice in front of others. The handover standard still applies, but the public setting was not appropriate. I will correct that approach. We also need to understand why the handover was incomplete.

This protects both dignity and accountability.

E — Explain, own and agree actions

The manager should explain decisions honestly, own mistakes and define future behaviour.

Possible actions include:

• move sensitive feedback to private conversations;
• provide the same briefing information to all affected employees;
• clarify workload or scheduling criteria;
• document expectations and authority;
• provide coaching or training;
• rotate opportunities fairly;
• involve another manager or HR;
• agree how concerns will be raised early.

Do not offer an apology that avoids the issue, such as “I am sorry you feel that way.” If the manager made a mistake, name it clearly.

T — Track and review

Agree a review date and evidence.

We will meet again next Thursday after four shifts. We will review whether feedback was given privately, whether the handover standard was met and whether any new concerns arose.

Trust is rebuilt through repeated behaviour, not one conversation.

A practical opening script

Thank you for agreeing to speak with me. I understand that you feel I have treated you differently or that my approach has felt personal. I do not want to dismiss that. I also need to keep the required service and conduct standards clear. I would like to hear the specific situations first, then I will explain what I understood and we can agree what needs to change on both sides.

The script is direct without becoming defensive.

How to respond to common statements

“You only speak to me when I make mistakes.”

I can see why that would make our relationship feel negative. I need to give clearer recognition and regular check-ins, not only correction. Let us also review the two performance issues that still need action.

“Other employees are late and nothing happens.”

Fairness matters. I will review the records and the way the standard has been applied. I cannot discuss another employee’s private case, but I can explain the rule and how your situation was handled.

“You do not trust me.”

Let us identify which decisions or tasks made you feel that. I will explain the current authority limit, and we can agree what evidence or training would support greater responsibility.

“I am scared to raise problems.”

I am concerned to hear that. Please explain what response made you feel unsafe to speak. I will also explain the channels available if you prefer to raise the matter with another manager or HR.

“You embarrassed me in front of the team.”

I should have handled a non-urgent correction privately. I apologise for the public approach. The underlying standard still needs to be addressed, and we can do that now in a respectful way.

Rebuild trust without lowering standards

Trust repair is not the removal of accountability. The manager can be respectful and firm at the same time.

Use:

• clear written expectations;
• predictable check-ins;
• specific evidence;
• equal access to information;
• consistent application of rules;
• private correction;
• timely recognition;
• reasonable support and training;
• agreed escalation routes;
• documented follow-up.

Avoid sudden overcompensation, such as giving the employee special treatment because the manager feels guilty. That can create a new fairness problem.

Review workload, schedules and opportunity patterns

Many relationship concerns are connected to allocation decisions.

Area	Questions to check
Shifts	Who receives nights, weekends, late finishes and preferred days?
Workload	Who gets the difficult section, high-maintenance cases or extra tasks?
Development	Who receives cross-training, projects and acting responsibilities?
Recognition	Whose contribution is visible? Who receives only correction?
Flexibility	Are requests handled using consistent criteria?
Information	Does everyone receive the same relevant updates?

A difference may have a legitimate business reason. The manager should be able to explain it without revealing another employee’s confidential information.

When the employee’s behaviour also needs correction

An employee can feel unfairly treated and still have a genuine performance or conduct gap. Address the two issues separately.

I accept that my public tone was inappropriate, and I will change it. Separately, the attendance record shows three late arrivals without the required notification. We need an action plan for that standard.

This avoids using the employee’s concern to erase accountability or using the performance issue to dismiss the concern.

Managing conflict between two employees

Sometimes “the manager hates me” is connected to wider team conflict. A manager may speak separately with each person, clarify the issue and decide whether a facilitated conversation is suitable.

A facilitated conversation should:

• have a neutral purpose;
• allow each person to explain the impact;
• focus on future working arrangements;
• avoid forcing an apology;
• record agreed behaviour and boundaries;
• include a review date.

Formal mediation may be more appropriate when the relationship has broken down and the organisation has a qualified process. Mediation is not suitable for every serious conduct or safety issue.

Cultural and language factors

Hospitality teams may interpret directness, eye contact, silence, hierarchy and public disagreement differently. Leaders should not stereotype cultures, but should ask how the communication was understood.

Use plain language, avoid jokes or sarcasm in sensitive feedback and confirm meaning. If language support is needed, use an authorised interpreter or bilingual support while protecting privacy.

Document the right information

A trust-repair record should include:

• date and participants;
• concern raised;
• specific examples;
• facts confirmed;
• manager response;
• standard that still applies;
• actions for each person;
• support or escalation;
• review date;
• final outcome.

Do not write insulting labels or unnecessary personal details. Follow the organisation’s data-retention and access rules.

A 14-day repair plan

Day 1: listen and stabilise

Hold the initial conversation, address any urgent risk and agree temporary communication boundaries.

Days 2–3: review evidence

Check records, allocation patterns, earlier messages and relevant policy. Consult HR or another authorised manager where needed.

Day 4: agree the plan

Confirm what the manager will change, what the employee must do, what support is available and how concerns will be raised.

Days 5–12: demonstrate consistency

Use private feedback, fair information, predictable check-ins and evidence-based decisions. Avoid dramatic gestures.

Day 14: review

Ask:

• What has improved?
• What remains unclear?
• Were standards applied consistently?
• Did both parties complete their actions?
• Is informal follow-up enough, or is another process needed?

Warning signs that trust is not improving

Escalate or seek additional support when:

• the same concern repeats with new evidence;
• retaliation is alleged;
• either party refuses agreed boundaries;
• behaviour becomes threatening or humiliating;
• facts are being hidden or altered;
• service, safety or wellbeing is affected;
• the manager cannot remain impartial;
• the employee requests a formal route.

Common mistakes

Avoid:

• saying a good leader must be disliked;
• dismissing emotion as weakness;
• demanding respect while using public humiliation;
• sharing the concern with colleagues as gossip;
• apologising without changing behaviour;
• changing standards only for one person;
• discussing another employee’s confidential case;
• using the employee’s performance gap to silence a concern;
• promising that the relationship will improve without a review plan;
• treating mediation as suitable for every serious allegation.

Frequently asked question

What should a manager do when an employee says, “You hate me”?

Acknowledge the concern, ask for specific examples, review facts and fairness patterns, separate the relationship issue from any performance standard, agree actions for both sides, involve the correct formal process where necessary and review whether behaviour and trust improve.

Final takeaway

Leadership does not require every employee to like every decision, but it does require dignity, consistency, fair reasons and accountable follow-up. Treat a claim of personal dislike as a signal to examine the relationship and the work system—not as an insult to defeat.

Use the downloadable HCA trust-repair record to prepare the conversation, separate facts from interpretations, document actions and review progress without weakening legitimate standards.

Related HCA guides

• employee feedback in hospitality
• responsible hospitality coaching
• performance management in hospitality
• leadership and team management
• human resource management in hospitality

Update references

• Improve Our Leadership Skills - He Hates Me — Hospitality Career Academy
• Challenging conversations and how to manage them — Acas
• Informal resolution — Acas
• Employee voice — CIPD
• Line managers in people professions — CIPD
• Management Standards — UK Health and Safety Executive
• Coaching Others: Use Active Listening Skills — Center for Creative Leadership