Picture this: The boardroom is flooded with early-evening light as the setting sun illuminates the dark wood of the conference table and creates reflections off the white board. All five members of the C-suite have assembled for what should have been a quick check-in about the deadline for the new product launch.
The CEO and the Chief Technology Officer are aligned on the big picture: they both want a successful product launch. The CTO is advocating to push back the launch date due to recently discovered bugs in the software. The CEO doesn’t like that idea because the go-to-market timeline is critical for capturing early market share. The CTO is so concerned about the unreliable software that he’s tactfully offering to step away from the project (e.g. quit). The CEO rolls her eyes as she blurts, “Here come the histrionics, again!”
The two officers are in a deadlock and are steadily raising their voices. The other executives look on as they realize that they won’t be leaving on time today.
This sort of scene isn’t just commonplace; it’s also expensive. At a minimum, this disagreement between the CTO and the CEO creates anxiety amongst the other executives. They are watching how their leader handles conflict and taking mental notes.
Whatever happens, it’s clear that the software launch isn’t going to happen smoothly. These weekly check-in meetings will quickly become politicized, and team members will look for excuses not to attend. The stress and anxiety then ripple downhill to the rest of the company.
If left unchecked, subordinates will notice the growing rift between the CTO and the CEO and feel obligated to pick a side. Ideological trenches will form. Eventually, people start handing in notices. This is why agile leaders know that mediation isn’t just a last resort; it’s a performance tool.
Why C-Suite Conflicts Are Different
The power dynamics of a typical boardroom often necessitate a neutral third-party. The other executives ultimately report to the CEO and may hesitate to speak truth to power. Intervening may not be a part of their skill set or standard duties, and trying could make matters worse. Self-preservation instincts will prompt the uninvolved parties to distance themselves as much as possible.The risk of amplification is immense. If any one of the executives lets it slip that the CEO and CTO are in a gridlock, other employees will immediately pay attention and look for clues about what the rift could mean for them. Ditto if one loses respect for the other.
These kinds of conflicts start at the top, but they rarely stay there. Instead, they cascade to lower-level employees who notice a shift in culture and atmosphere. If the situation doesn’t improve, top-performing employees will look to transition to a company with better vibes.
Executive-level conflicts are different because traditional forms of dispute resolution, such as litigation or even arbitration, are poor choices. No C-suite wants to litigate differences of opinion. To do so would cost thousands of dollars and would force the company to air its dirty laundry in public. Mediation is the only reasonable solution.
The kinds of conflicts experienced by top-level employees aren’t exceptional. Conflicts can arise from strategy versus capacity (or when ambition outpaces resources), role creep and decision-making overlaps, and especially risk appetite.
Compliance officers are notorious for having a low tolerance for risk, while marketing officers usually have a generous appetite for it. Succession and founder transition are other sources of conflict that are difficult to solve internally. Since the decision affects everyone, it’s almost impossible for anyone to remain neutral about a possible succession.
ROI: Why Mediation Beats “Handling it Internally”
Some companies rely on the Human Resources Department to mediate internal conflicts. That might work, unless HR is involved with the mess themselves, or if they’re perceived as being partial to one side. Employees know that HR is intended to protect the company, not the individual workers, so HR can’t always be trusted to remain neutral.
Furthermore, once the conflict is resolved, the HR workers have to continue working at the company, unlike an outside mediator. If another employee is unhappy with the end result, resentment towards HR can manifest, thus creating a brand new conflict. Employees are right to be skeptical about the impartiality of the HR Department.
Hiring an outside third party is often the cheapest and fastest solution. Mediators are accustomed to resolving conflicts quickly and can usually be engaged with very little lead time. This speed helps the company and executives hold onto their reputation while simultaneously preventing executive turnover.
Mediation also preserves optionality: in the event that a dispute does need to be litigated, that path remains viable. When executives make a clear decision and demonstrate who owns what, everyone beneath them moves faster and with more confidence. A neutral third party keeps the company moving forward without breaking pace.
Warning Signs Your Team Needs Mediation
Generally speaking, if an overall lack of clarity prevents decisions from being made, then your team might need to call a mediator. If meetings end on time, but without decisions being made, or if key projects are always two weeks out, then clarity is missing, and a mediator could be needed.
If leaders route around one another, possibly demonstrating a “shadow” org chart, then a mediator can get leaders talking again. If meetings are consistently held without the full team, or if employees are bypassing direct managers to get approval from higher-ups, then mistrust is at work.
Conflict isn’t a sign that something’s broken: it’s often a strong sign of growth. Managing conflict proactively helps organizations build and create trust. Mediation should be normalized as organizational maintenance. If you’re experiencing conflict that lingers, schedule a session with a neutral third party. You’ll be glad you did.
About the Author
Bethany Niebauer is the Business and Mediation Columnist for Fat Nugs Magazine and the founder of Axial Resolutions, a mediation firm specializing in dispute resolution for the cannabis industry. With a decade of experience in the cannabis space, she writes about the evolving business and regulatory landscape.
