It all depends on what is the how that the other who (namely you) doesn't like.

OK, I’m also confused by that sentence. I couldn't help it. I just read Horton Hears a Who! to my grandson …

Just “not liking” how someone does his job sounds very flimsy. Does his talking too fast, tapping his fingers on his desk or wearing a tie-dye shirt annoy you? These are examples of aggravating, but petty and irrelevant concerns.

On the other hand, if he’s undermining or violating company values, that’s a different story. Do you not like his discourtesy toward customers and co-workers, his regularly showing up late, his open disrespect for protocols or authority? These are examples of HOWs that merit your dislike, and should be corrected.

Many supervisors have told me that they manage by getting out of the way. They recognize the value of giving leeway to the many and varied ways that people work. Makes sense. People are, indeed, many and varied. So why force them into cookie-cutter behaviors when we can affirm expressions of their unique dignity?

I tend to agree with that approach. People operate best when they have the freedom to do their work in a manner that’s most natural to them. And that’s good, unless what’s “natural” is objectively objectionable – disrespect, gossip, outbursts of anger, etc.

It only remotely relates, but I’m reminded of Joshua. He didn't like how two men were prophesying in the Israelite camp. He pleaded with Moses to forbid them. Moses refused: “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all of God’s people were prophets.” (Nm 11:29)

We might translate: “Would that all of those employed do their job.” That's a nice problem.