Do you deal with the 'small stuff' that slowly disrupts your team?

How detrimental could it be for your team to not have a way to voice and deal with the 'smaller' interpersonal issues at work? In a reasonable organisation, serious issues will be dealt with, but the little nagging ones may not be. And then what? 

I dug out some some research led by Daniel Gilbert, the Harvard professor of psychology, after comments in his discussion with Adam Grant on the WorkLife podcast. The findings - from non-work related contexts - indicate that when we get upset to a level above a certain threshold, we will find a way to reframe or deal with it, ultimately moving beyond it. But not so with smaller issues. 

Paradoxically, this means that while we 'get over' what's initially perceived as a bigger affront, we keep harbouring resentment for the smaller one. (Although we believe we're going to stay upset with the 'big issue' for longer.) In Gilbert's example, we might make the effort to rationalise a partner's infidelity, but we'll stay annoyed with their habit of not doing the dishes. 

I'm pondering what this means at work, both for leaders and team-member relationships. Something that continually grates could of course mount up and "explode." But what if it's just a lingering feeling that causes a negative affect between colleagues? 

For example, while we're far more aware than we used to be of micro-aggressions, there's often not a straightforward way to address and get beyond them in teams when they occur. Sometimes, irritation with others come straight from the mind-reading our brains are so keen on. We believe we "know" what someone thinks ("he didn't like me saying that") when there's no way we can have any idea without checking with the person in question. My work to improve communication and fuel healthy collaboration seeks to address this. If we can be curious and open, the "smaller upsets" can get cleared before they start lingering. 

What are your thoughts on this? What do you think is needed, if anything?