Conflict at the CEO and board level requires a win-win approach.

Where there are people, there is going to be perceived conflict and difficult conversations—they happen everywhere, personally and professionally. When there is conflict on a team, organizational performance can suffer in in a number of ways:

• The company's image can suffer, the reputation, their brand, the CEO, and the Board may lose the confidence of investors and shareholders.
• Difficult situations not handled directly can impact organizations negatively and then people are miserable going to work when there is a perceived conflict.
• Misery at work leads to low productivity and poor decision-making, all of which lead to lower revenues.

Not being able to find our way to the other side of a disagreement will absolutely lead to substantial business risks.

In the Get Hired Up! Podcast, we interviewed Liza Provenzano—Founder and Principal Consultant of SparkHR, a human resources and leadership development firm. She says:

“Predominantly with leaders...the types of situations they're bringing up are performance concerns and those are very challenging conversations to address.

How do I have a discussion with someone about their work not being up to speed and still help that individual continue to be engaged, help them to find the way forward in a motivating way? The poor performance conversation is often one that preoccupies leaders the most.”

Don’t ignore this conversation.

17 Tips for navigating difficult conversations. Get the expanded list and instructions here.

1. Do your research in advance.

2. Establish a safe environment for the conversation.

3. Invite your team member to the meeting.

4. Ask for the team member for his/her point of view.

5. Listen and stay curious.

6. Seek their perspective and avoid assumptions.

7. Agree to disagree, if appropriate.

8. Ask specific questions.

9. Remain curious.

10. Listen deeply.

11. Ask what we could have done differently.

12. Discuss agreed next steps.

13. Put it in writing

14. Set a date to check in.

15. Repeat this procedure during the check-in.

16. Do not cancel this meeting.

17. Recognize good performance, always.

Demand sensing and market research

Imagine an executive team—CEO, CTO, COO, CRO, CFO, and the CMO. They're making rash decisions and investors and the board are NOT happy, because the team decided to launch 4 “pop-up" sites at once in 4 different states.

It didn't work!

Again, the investors are not happy. The CEO is stressed because the chair of the board is calling him constantly to complain about the expenses for 4 different rents, operating expenses, lacklustre revenues, and other significant challenges. The board is getting ready for the quarter-end meeting and now the CEO is worried about how he's going to address the concerns of the board.

To begin with, the sites are in 4 different states with 4 unique markets—NYC, Denver, Cupertino, and Toronto. After 120 days they've lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in unrecoverable costs with low sales and now the CEO needs to chat with the Chair of the board to explain the failure.

The conversation is uncomfortable. The CEO, with the best of intentions, thought the plan was solid. Unfortunately, he didn't test it. Too many "cooks in the kitchen" and not enough market analysis.

In collaboration with the CEO, the board decided it is in the company’s best interest to hire a third-party company to provide objective, concise, and proven strategies to help its leaders re-establish trust and focus for the business plan.

Westgate completed a review and suggested solution quickly. Part of our review involves a scientific analysis that helps identify (mis) communication behavior amongst the executive team.

From the analysis, we determined that there is a recalibration required because we don't have enough "risk mitigation" skills on the team. Team members continue to bump heads over both small and large decisions because they lack self-awareness with their behavioral styles and the styles of others around them.

All in all, the team has "too much" D style (driver and assertive/persuasive style). We needed to balance the team and help the CEO have a conversation with the board—to assure the board they can remedy the communication and performance issues in a way that avoids terminating key members—saving the company a lot of money and time!

Recalibrating the team

What will often happen is that there will be two responses to conflict in those styles. And neither one is right or wrong. They're just different. Having self-awareness is really important because we can begin to move the needle forward on important conversations and decision-making in a way that honors each perspective.

For example, I worked with a high D general manager who was really upset and thought that a certain product engineer was being very rude, unmotivated with their work, and disrespectful. He was consistently late for Monday morning production meetings—it turned out that the engineer was getting his numbers late from the production team.

He was more concerned with being criticized for being late than for being wrong, because being wrong would have been more uncomfortable for him (that is a personality and behavior difference). And he had to go through this process that could have been avoided and/or dealt with differently if they had had that brief (but constructive) conversation rather than the general manager steaming over this engineer that was consistently late for the Monday morning meeting.

Misunderstandings cause a lot of inefficiency and in some cases, they can cause lasting resentment. Trust is reduced and one of the costs of perceived mis-trust is that people are less likely to speak up and voice their views in the future. And that could really compromise the quality of decision making and the future of the company.

Understanding various behavioral styles will help with difficult conversations. Not just because it will shed some light on why they perform and/or react the way they do, but it will give insight into HOW to have the difficult conversations with that specific person.

We help teams recalibrate by using a tool that is reliable, compliant, and scientifically validated.

Validated. Reliable. Compliant.

A Scientific Solution for Professionals.

Our assessments are leading with independent validation meeting American Psychological Association (APA), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), including Adverse Impact Compliancy, American Educational Research Association (AERA), and National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) standards.

Our goal is to ensure the trust of both our clients by providing the most accurate and reliable assessments available. We believe our assessments and reports will prove to be the top choice among industry professionals who value accuracy, compliance, and objectivity.

Testing for APA Standards & EEOC Compliance

A recent review revealed a significant majority of assessments available today lacked the studies & reporting to confirm their accuracy. Of the small minority which claimed reporting, the significant majority of those were conducted privately; oftentimes by the assessment provider itself, rather than an objective and scientifically qualified third party.

Our assessments are submitted to an objective, independently conducted battery of tests: Construct Validity, Reliability, and Disparate Impact - all by a qualified scientific authority; Assessment Standards Institute.

Note: When the assessments are used for hiring, the results are limited to 20% of the hiring decision, as the assessments do not reveal experience, education, training, nor work history.

From our DISC advisor, Jane Roqueplot:

"Behavioral research suggests that the most effective people are those who understand themselves, both their strengths and weaknesses, so they can develop strategies to meet the demands of their environment. This report measures the four dimensions of normal behavior: dominance, influence, steadiness and compliance."

Executive/Board Clarity

Mitigating misunderstandings and poor communication can be accomplished with clarity. However, what many people don’t always practice is HOW they present clarity. It can be presented in a condescending way which leads to a different problem, lack of trust and safety in the work-place.

Liza worked with a leader recently and shared her experience with us. She had to have a very challenging discussion with a direct report about compensation. She knew that the individual was going to be quite disappointed by what she had to share. So, she was very clear and transparent about what she had to say—she didn't dance around it.

She was direct, she was clear, and she got his view. So, he had an opportunity to express his reactions to what she had to say. It was difficult news, she listened, she really made an effort to understand his perspective, without judgment, she maintained her view—her position on the compensation was the same. Now it could have changed—after listening, sometimes our views change. But in this case, it remained the same. And they found a way forward. She shared with Liza that the conversation was 20 minutes and she thought it would take so much longer. She said, “but when I slow down, and I'm present, the conversation is better.”

When we slow down, we get present with the other person, we truly listen, we actually get more done. We're able to move forward even when we disagree. That is allowing for proper, effective clarity.

Avoiding role ambiguity

Role ambiguity is generally manifested through a lack of communication and clarity.

A gentleman I spoke with recently received feedback he got from a 360 (assessment) that indicated he would take a long time to update the team on his progress with projects. From his point of view, he wasn't yet finished, and so, he wasn't ready to report out to the team. This caused uncertainty and resentment on the team.

When not addressed effectively, bigger mis-communication issues would likely have arisen. We discussed it then created a plan to easily communicate the status of the project with his team. Moving forward, regardless of the project status, he was to report out weekly to his team. This helped to eliminate ambiguity and re-establish trust.

We took time (not a lot of time, by the way) together, the two of us, to assess this perceived conflict by examining the differences in behavioral styles on the team. We used an approach that honored everyone on the team, was thorough (using the consultant—me—as an objective sounding board), and created an easy-to-implement operating plan for the next 90 days.

Listening & Paraphrasing

Genuinely listen and be curious—those are signs of true respect.

According to Liza:

“When the relationship is a safe one. The levels of trust are high and when the level of trust are high, people can say what they really think. We want it to be safe to disagree. The most productive teams are able to have dissent. And that dissent makes things better. And they have dissent, because there are high levels of trust. And because there are high levels of trust, it's safe. The things that we could do to create that safety…it's not an expensive solution, it's to genuinely listen, to be curious, those are signs of respect.”

The clarity piece can open up so much more efficiency and productivity, and just taking the time to have that conversation is a sign of respect. We encourage people, and I do it myself, to paraphrase back.

Paraphrasing is a skill in a discussion that can be very helpful. if somebody is paraphrasing, they can't do so without listening…so keep that in mind.

According to Liza:

“I hear, ‘hey, you know what, I'm going to listen more’. Okay, that's a great intention, one of the ways to do that is to paraphrase in your conversation and play back what you think you're hearing so the other person knows, and then again, clarity, go back to that word. As leaders, one of our main jobs is to provide clarity…clarity of expectations, clarity of roles, clarity in a discussion, it's our job to get clear, and when we don't have clarity, it’s our responsibility to have the dialogue in order to find that clarity.”

A personal example of this for me is when I worked for an executive who would brainstorm out loud. But what I would often do is I would leave that conversation thinking that he had given me direction. What I would know to do now is say, “Chris, you know, based on this conversation, this is what I heard. Is your intention for me to do, XYZ?”

Paraphrasing and recapping is an obvious, yet underused tool in difficult conversations. It encourages clarity and respect because in order to do either, you have to listen and that is proven in taking those steps.

Recapping

At the end of a discussion, every discussion that you have, particularly those discussions that might be more highly charged, or where there's disagreement…at the end of the discussion, recap. What's next? With a direct report, for example, ask what are you going to do next? And by when? Or with what peer? Let's review next steps together. Both folks are leaving the discussion, very clear on where they're going next, confirming that they're mutually agreed upon outcomes, and they're feeling okay.

Seek THEIR perspective

Avoid assumptions at all costs.

Think about why the other person wants to have this discussion. What's in it for them to have that discussion? There is, in all likelihood, going to be something where you've got some common ground. So, what's important to them and understanding that is critical.

We make assumptions about what other people think and feel so let's try and catch ourselves in those assumptions. When you're sitting down with a direct report on a performance problem, get their view about how it's going…get curious, ask them questions.

According to Liza:

“Put your view out there first and get his or her view on your view. So, for example, they could lay out what they believe their expectations are, and then ask their boss, what's your view on this? If I accomplish these things over the course of the next year, does that line up with what you need? Start to get the other person's perspectives…that's critical in moving forward in any difficult conversation…genuine curiosity and interest in understanding the other person's view.”

The number one main priority in having a conversation with a direct report or a colleague is to help them feel safe in that environment. When the relationship is a safe one, the levels of trust are high and when the level of trust are high, then people can say what they really think.

According to a HBR article by Douglas Stone and Elaine Lin Hering, Mastering Difficult Conversations, “there is often a gap between what people are really thinking and what they say. In a wide-ranging interview, two experts on the topic show that every difficult conversation is really about three things—what actually happened, our identity, and our feelings.

To summarize, these are actionable items you can take with you into difficult conversations now, but the ultimate tool that will help in navigating the conversations and how best to use these methods is through performance and behavioral assessments. Understand how your team, the board, and YOU react and perform best. It’s the due diligence you want to have done before entering a difficult conversation.

Avoid the costly expense of having to terminate a member of the team. With the self awareness the assessment brings to your organization using a scientifically validated tool, such as DISC Leadership Assessment, you will achieve your quarterly goals with less friction and more harmony while improving your employee engagement.