When the problem is between two of them
When Two Senior Leaders Stop Working Together
It rarely looks like open conflict. It looks like slow decisions, careful meetings, and two people describing the same events differently.
A broken relationship between two senior leaders rarely looks like open conflict. It looks like slow decisions, careful meetings and two people describing the same events differently. Repair works when both agree specific, mutual behaviours for a defined period, without relitigating who was right, and are checked at 30 to 60 days.
Trusted by leaders at
How do I know this is actually costing the business?
Look at decision speed rather than at temperature. Two leaders in conflict usually stay professional, which is what makes it hard to see. What changes is that decisions requiring both of them take longer, get routed around, or arrive at the CEO who was never meant to be involved.
There is a quieter signal that matters more. When a senior leader stops owning decisions in front of their own team, saying in effect that a call came from above and is out of their hands, the disagreement has begun replicating downward. One owner of a technical training company counted three or four instances of this that reached her, and reasoned the true number was likely two or three times higher, because she only ever hears about a fraction.
How repair is structured
What does repair actually involve?
A structured conversation with one rule: acknowledge what happened without relitigating it. Both people describe how they experienced the same events. Neither is asked to concede their account was wrong, because that demand is what makes these conversations fail.
- Acknowledge, do not relitigate. Each person describes how they experienced the same situations. No adjudication of who was right.
- Name specific, observable behaviours. Not "communicate better". What each person will do differently, in a way a third party could notice.
- Set a defined period. The commitments run for a fixed window, not indefinitely.
- Schedule the check-in at the outset. 30 to 60 days, booked before anyone leaves the room.
"We came with a clear problem: communication breakdowns and a lack of trust. In just a few short months, we've seen measurable improvements. Better communication, stronger accountability, and a roadmap for the next 90 days."
Jonathan KurljacCEO, iBallistixHow do I know whether it is fixable, or whether someone has to go?
The test is not whether they like each other. It is whether both will commit to named behaviours and then do them. A structured conversation produces that evidence within a few weeks, faster and considerably cheaper than replacing a senior leader on a hunch.
Where the honest answer turns out to be that one person will not engage, you have learned that in weeks rather than quarters, and you are making a personnel decision with something to point at.
Should I fix this, or should they?
They should, and often they cannot. Two people who have already misread each other several times have no shared account of events to reason from, and each new attempt tends to confirm what each already believes. That is when a third party is worth bringing in, not to judge but to hold a structure neither of them can hold alone.
Doing nothing is a decision too. Left alone, senior conflict does not resolve; it distributes, as the two teams below adopt the postures of the leaders above them.
Senior conflict does not resolve. It distributes.
What the teams below start copyingSee the actual output
Look at It Before You Decide
A diagnostic produces three things. All three are below in full, as a complete worked example for a four-leader team at a multi-location trucking and parts company. The team, the company and the scores are illustrative. The format, the depth and the wording are exactly what you receive.
- The team report a sponsor sees →TP3 scores across the leadership team, where the gaps sit, and what to address first.
- What each leader logs into →Their own scores, their 90-day focus, and their debrief.
- The full written report, as delivered →The complete document. Nothing removed.
Your next seven days. Write down one recent decision that took longer than it should have. Note who had to agree, and how many exchanges it took. Do it for a second decision. If both involve the same two people, you have your evidence, and it is worth more than your impression of the relationship.
Who you're working with
Built for This Work. Not Borrowed From Another.
Alex Tremble is the founder of GPS Leadership Solutions and the creator of TP3™, the 4C™ Connection Model and the 3R Relationship Model™. He has published five leadership books.
The work runs on one engine, whatever the sector: clarify the real outcome, expose the honest gap, force the real choice. He is not the domain expert in your business. He is the person who reduces a complex, emotionally loaded situation to the two or three things that actually matter, so a capable leader can decide and move.
Frequently asked
Questions Executives Ask
What does a structured conversation between two senior leaders involve?
Both leaders describe how they experienced the same situations, with a facilitator holding one rule: acknowledge what happened without relitigating who was right. They then agree specific, observable behaviours each will commit to for a defined period, with a check-in scheduled at 30 to 60 days.
Do I have to fire one of them?
Usually not, and it is worth establishing that before acting. Most senior conflict comes from two people interpreting the same events differently and never comparing accounts. A structured conversation tests within weeks whether both will commit to named behaviours, which is a far cheaper way to find out than replacing an executive.
Isn't this what HR is for?
HR is well placed for policy, process and formal grievance. Conflict between two peers at the top of an organisation is often outside what an internal function can hold, because HR reports into the same structure and is rarely seen as neutral by both parties. That neutrality is the thing being bought.
Is executive mediation confidential?
Yes. What each leader says in the process is not reported upward as a transcript. What is shared is the set of behaviours both have committed to and whether those commitments are being met, which is what the organisation actually needs to know.
What if one of them refuses to participate?
That is information, and it should be treated as such rather than worked around. A senior leader who will not engage in a structured conversation about a relationship that is costing the business has given you a clear answer about the range of outcomes still available.
Could this make things worse?
Naming a problem does raise its temperature briefly. What makes it worse is doing it badly, reopening old incidents to establish fault. The rule against relitigating exists for that reason. In our experience the greater risk by far is leaving it, because unaddressed senior conflict spreads to the teams below.
How long does repair take?
The structured conversation is a single session. The commitments run for a defined period with a check-in at 30 to 60 days, which is where you find out whether behaviour actually changed. A parallel engagement between two senior leaders showed confirmed improvement on both sides at the 30-to-60 day follow-up.
Do we need the whole team assessed, or just the two of them?
It depends on how far it has spread. If the conflict is contained between two people, assessing both is enough. If their teams have started adopting the same postures, a wider read is more useful, and the answer to which of those is happening is usually not obvious from the top.
Get an Evidence-Based Read First
Before deciding whether a relationship is repairable, it helps to know how each leader is actually experienced by the people around them. The 14-Day Executive Leadership Diagnostic gives you that in two weeks.
Request the 14-Day Diagnostic Not ready? Take the Scorecard