You meet people you did not choose, every day. Changing the structure works better than changing the relationship.
The first reason work relationships are hard is that you cannot choose the other person and cannot easily leave. Evaluation and pay are involved, so the balance of power is tilted from the start. That is why approaches that work in personal relationships do not transfer directly. Sorting out the structure through which work flows is generally more effective than trying to make the relationship pleasant.
Expecting colleagues to also serve as friends accumulates resentment. Work running well and getting along are different goals, and many relationships are sufficient with only the first. Conversely, keeping too much distance pushes you out of the information flow, so treating a degree of contact as part of the job is realistic.
Timelines and scope agreed verbally are remembered differently later, even without deliberate distortion. Summarising what was agreed after a meeting and sharing it reduces conflict by itself. This is not distrust; it accounts for the limits of memory.
Attempts to change the other person usually fail. What you can design is the interface. Keep conversations short, confine topics to work, use channels that leave a record, reduce one-to-one situations. Deciding how you work with someone is more effective than trying to judge their character.
Humiliation, deliberately unmanageable assignments, exclusion and attacks on your private life are not matters for interpersonal adjustment. Enduring them does not resolve them. Recording what happened with dates and consulting an internal process or an outside body is the order to follow. Even if you choose to endure, keep the record.
Each button runs this keyword on that search engine