The Standoff: Two Executives Who Stopped Speaking
In this illustrative scenario, by the time an outside mediator became involved, the Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Revenue Officer had not had a real conversation in almost five months.
They still attended the same leadership meetings. They were polite, in the way people are polite when they are keeping score. Questions for each other went through the CEO, through their assistants, or through long emails copied to people who did not need to be copied. Their teams had stopped sharing information, and everyone in the building knew why.
The disagreement had started over something ordinary: a change in how sales commitments were handed off to operations. Both leaders had good reasons for their positions. Somewhere along the way, though, the dispute stopped being about the handoff process and started being about each other.
The CEO had tried everything he could think of. He had met with each of them separately. He had brought them together for a “clear the air” lunch that made things worse. He had considered whether one of them needed to go, and he did not want to lose either.
That is when he sought an outside mediator.
This is an illustrative composite created to explain common leadership-conflict dynamics, not an account of a specific mediation or an actual result. Details and dialogue are illustrative.
What Does Conflict Between Senior Leaders Cost an Organization?
Conflict between senior leaders costs an organization far more than one strained relationship. When two frontline employees stop speaking, it is a problem. When two senior leaders stop speaking, it becomes the organization’s problem.
In this illustrative situation, the organizational costs would be apparent:
- Decisions stalled. Anything that required both leaders to agree simply waited, or was escalated to a CEO who had other work to do.
- Teams chose sides. Managers learned which leader to go to for which answer, and stopped trusting information from the other group.
- Good people started looking. Two high performers had quietly begun interviewing elsewhere. One told the CEO she was tired of “working between two parents who will not talk.”
- The CEO lost time and credibility. Every week he spent refereeing was a week he was not leading.
Senior leaders often believe they are containing a conflict because they are not raising their voices. They are not. People watch leaders closely, and silence at the top sends a very loud message.
Why Do Senior Leaders Get Stuck in Conflict?
Senior leaders rarely get stuck because they are difficult people. They get stuck because identity, assumptions, and strengths under pressure lock them into position. My background as an employment litigator, corporate executive, and executive leadership coach helps me recognize how legal exposure, organizational pressures, and leadership behavior can interact. In mediation, however, my role is neutral: I do not assess participants as a coach or provide coaching to either side. The following patterns illustrate challenges that can emerge at senior levels.
The dispute became about identity, not the issue. The original disagreement was about a process. Within weeks, each leader experienced it as a question about their competence and their standing. When a conflict feels like a referendum on who you are, conceding even a small point feels like losing.
Each had written a story about the other. The COO believed the CRO was making promises to customers without regard for what it cost her team. The CRO believed the COO was protecting her territory and slowing down growth. Each saw their own behavior as reasonable and the other’s as intentional. Every new email became evidence for the story.
Their strengths had turned into liabilities. The COO’s discipline and attention to detail, which made her excellent at her job, showed up under stress as rigidity. The CRO’s confidence and drive, which made him a strong sales leader, showed up as dismissiveness. Neither recognized the change in themselves. Both saw it clearly in the other.
Silence had become a strategy. After two conversations went badly, both decided, without ever saying so, that avoiding each other was safer. Avoidance felt like professionalism. It was actually a way of protecting themselves from another painful exchange.
The longer it lasted, the more each had invested in being right. Five months of standing firm is a lot to walk back. Each leader had told their version to colleagues, and changing course now felt like admitting they had been wrong in front of an audience.
No one was above them. Earlier in their careers, a manager would have stepped in and required them to work it out. At this level, the only person with that authority was the CEO, and both leaders saw him as having a stake in the outcome.
None of these patterns made them bad leaders. They made them human leaders with a great deal at stake.
Why Does Workplace Mediation Work for Leadership Conflict?
Workplace mediation works for leadership conflict because it offers a neutral, confidential, and structured setting that internal efforts cannot. In this scenario, the CEO’s efforts were sincere, but his supervisory role made him a difficult person to lead the conversation. Both leaders reported to him, and both were managing how they looked to him. Mediation changed the conditions in several important ways.
A neutral party with no stake in the outcome. An outside mediator would not supervise either leader, evaluate their performance, or decide who was right. That allowed each of them to speak more honestly than they could with their boss in the room.
Confidentiality. The mediator would explain the scope and limits of confidentiality before discussions began. Appropriate protections could help both leaders speak more candidly without treating the process as another performance review.
Private sessions first. The mediator could meet privately with each leader before a joint conversation. In those conversations, each could vent, test ideas, and consider what they might be willing to offer, without having to do it in front of the other person. This is often where face is saved and movement begins.
A shift from positions to interests. Each leader arrived with a position: “Sales must stop overcommitting” and “Operations must move faster.” Underneath were interests that were far more compatible than either realized. Both wanted the company to grow. Both wanted to be respected. Both wanted clear authority over their own decisions.
Structure for a hard conversation. When the two met together, the conversation had ground rules, an agenda, and someone responsible for keeping it productive. That structure made it possible to talk about things that had been too risky to raise on their own.
A written agreement. Senior relationships rarely have explicit agreements about how two leaders will work together. Mediation can help participants develop one.
What Can Mediation Achieve Between Two Executives?
In the illustrative scenario, a possible turning point came when the CRO explained that he felt excluded from decisions affecting his customers, and the COO explained that she felt her team had been blamed for problems it did not create. These concerns had not been discussed directly.
Putting those concerns into words created an opportunity for a different conversation.
One possible outcome would be an agreed handoff process, a 90-day review, a standing weekly meeting, and a commitment to raise concerns directly before involving their teams or the CEO.
The goal would not be friendship. It would be restoring enough trust and structure for the leaders to disagree openly, make decisions, and lead effectively.
Mediation outcomes depend on the participants and circumstances; no particular result can be promised.
When Should an Organization Use Workplace Mediation?
An organization should consider workplace mediation when conflict between leaders has stopped responding to informal efforts. If you lead an organization, or you are one of the leaders in a standoff, these are signs that the situation has moved beyond what a conversation over lunch can fix:
- Two senior leaders communicate mainly through email, assistants, or other people.
- Decisions that require both of them are delayed or pushed up the chain.
- Their teams have stopped sharing information or collaborating.
- Each leader describes the other’s motives in ways the other would not recognize.
- Earlier attempts by the CEO or HR to resolve it have not worked, or have made it worse.
- You are beginning to consider whether one of them needs to leave.
- Valued employees are frustrated, disengaged, or looking elsewhere.
The earlier a dispute like this is addressed, the easier it is to resolve. The longer it goes, the more each person has invested in their position.
A Better Way Forward
When two capable leaders stop talking, the instinct is often to wait it out, or to decide that one of them has to go. Neither should be assumed to be the only option. In my experience, most senior leaders in a standoff do not want to stay there. They simply do not see a way out that lets them keep their dignity.
If leadership conflict is affecting decision-making or team performance, an initial conversation about whether external mediation is appropriate may help clarify the next step.
Sheri L. Mooney, Esq., is an employment attorney and certified mediator serving organizations in Buffalo and throughout Western New York. She has nearly three decades of experience in employment law and workplace dispute resolution. She is also an executive coach. Her experience across employment litigation, senior corporate leadership, and executive coaching informs her understanding of workplace dynamics. When serving as a mediator, she remains neutral and does not coach mediation participants.