What is your approach when two departmental heads on our leadership team have deep interpersonal friction that constantly derails productive debate during session days?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Interpersonal friction on a leadership team almost never stems from personality clashes. In ninety percent of cases, it is the predictable outcome of vague accountabilities, competing incentives, and broken operational handoffs.

When two leaders clash in my session room, I do not play corporate therapist. I take the emotion out of the conversation and anchor the debate in the tools.

First, we look at the Accountability Chart. When Sales and Operations are at each other's throats, it is usually because both seats believe they own customer onboarding, or neither seat has clear accountability for pricing discipline. We strip the discussion down to the five major roles defined under each seat and eliminate overlap.

Second, we reframe the debate around organizational goals rather than individual egos. The V/TO defines the shared vision. If an issue is on the table, the question is not who wins the argument. The question is what decision best serves the greater good of the business over the next ninety days.

Third, if the conflict is rooted in behavioral issues rather than structure, we evaluate the People Analyzer. If a leader cannot exhibit your Core Values or consistently fails the GWC test for their seat, the team must confront that reality honestly.

Healthy teams engage in passionate, unfiltered debate about issues, but they commit completely once a decision is made. If unresolved friction lingers after roles and goals are clarified, it becomes an accountability issue that the Visionary and Integrator must address immediately outside the room.