Executive teams can argue endlessly when they use the same words but have different underlying definitions. A simple intervention—pausing to have each person define a key term—can reveal they aren't even talking about the same problem, immediately resolving the conflict.
Related Insights
Political arguments often stall because people use loaded terms like 'critical race theory' with entirely different meanings. Before debating, ask the other person to define the term. This simple step often reveals that the core disagreement is based on a misunderstanding, not a fundamental clash of values.
Effective dialogue in difficult conversations requires more than just listening. You must actively paraphrase the other person's perspective back to them for their confirmation. Only after they agree with your summary should you advocate for your own position.
Navigate disagreements with a four-step method: use uncertain language (Hedge), find common ground (Emphasize Agreement), demonstrate what you heard (Acknowledge), and frame points positively instead of negatively (Reframe). This prevents conversations from spiraling into negativity.
In disagreements, the objective isn't to prove the other person wrong or "win" the argument. The true goal is to achieve mutual understanding. This fundamental shift in perspective transforms a confrontational dynamic into a collaborative one, making difficult conversations more productive.
When smart partners think the other is an idiot, it's often due to a 'base assumption collision.' Each person operates on a different fundamental, unspoken belief about reality ('the world is X'). Identifying and discussing these hidden assumptions is key to resolving otherwise intractable conflicts.
When a big-picture leader communicates with a detail-oriented team, friction is inevitable. Recognizing this as a clash of communication styles—not a personal failing or lack of competence—is the first step. Adaptation, rather than frustration, becomes the solution.
Leaders often assume goal alignment. A simple exercise is to ask each team member to articulate the project's goal in their own words. The resulting variety in answers immediately highlights where alignment is needed before work begins, preventing wasted effort on divergent paths.
Gaining genuine team alignment is more complex than getting a superficial agreement. It involves actively surfacing unspoken assumptions and hidden contexts to ensure that when the team agrees, they are all agreeing to the same, fully understood plan.
The Waterline Model suggests 80% of team dysfunctions are rooted in structural problems (unclear goals, roles), not interpersonal issues. Before you 'scuba dive' into individual conflicts, 'snorkel' at the surface by clarifying roles and expectations. This simple act solves the majority of problems.
To prevent conflict from becoming personal or chaotic, first, explicitly state the disagreement out loud. Then, assign individuals to argue each side to ensure all perspectives are fully explored. This depersonalizes the debate and focuses it on the problem, not the people involved.
