Our weekly IDS® sessions are starting to feel personal and hostile, with two of our leaders frequently attacking each other's competence rather than focusing on the issue. The facilitator is afraid to intervene because they do not want to shut down healthy debate. How do we set healthy rules of engagement for conflict in our Level 10 Meeting™?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

There is a massive difference between healthy, ideological conflict and destructive, personal conflict. Healthy conflict attacks the issue; destructive conflict attacks the person. When debate turns personal, it shuts down vulnerability and destroys trust, which will ultimately ruin your meeting pulse.

As the facilitator, you have a duty to protect the team, and you must intervene the moment the line is crossed. To do this, establish clear rules of engagement before your next meeting. The primary rule is that all comments must be directed at solving the issue on the board, not evaluating the person in the seat.

If a leader says, you always fail to deliver your reports on time, the facilitator must immediately stop the meeting and rephrase the statement to focus on the process. Say, let's reframe that, the issue is that we are not receiving the reports by Friday at noon, so how do we fix the process. Use the Accountability Chart to depersonalize the debate. Remind the team that everyone is trying to do what is best for the business, not their personal kingdom. Intervening does not shut down debate, it actually makes the debate safer and more productive so that everyone can participate without fear of personal attack.