You’re increasingly stepping into the mediator role
At first, the situation seems harmless.
Just two leaders differing in their approach to a topic. Someone raises their voice in a meeting. Someone else stops speaking up. Comments appear like “he’s always difficult” or “she’s blocking the project again.”
You think it’s a difference of opinion. Or that someone lost their temper again.
Meanwhile, the conversations between these leaders grow shorter and sharper. Messages — more sparse. Emotions seep between the lines.
Decisions drag on because “they need to work it out again.” And you’re spending more and more time resolving disputes. And you increasingly wonder whether it’s about personalities and egos, or perhaps a lack of maturity.
You don’t have to resolve conflicts at all. You can effectively prevent them.
Imagine that even though your team is full of strong personalities and tough characters, differences of opinion don’t end in arguments. Or in silence that says more than words.
And you no longer have to conduct another round of disciplinary conversations or mediation.
You don’t have to silence anyone or determine who’s right this time. You don’t have to waste time listening to parties who can’t align again.
You finally have time for what truly requires a founder’s attention in your company. Without worrying that if you’re not participating in conversations, something will explode.
Because conflicts don’t have to keep coming back like a boomerang if you look at them from the right angle.
Just because a conflict sounds personal doesn’t mean it is personal.
I talk more about where team conflicts really come from and how to stop treating them as an interpersonal problem in episode 6 of the Founder 2.0 series, available in Polish and English.
A personal conflict is often a mask for a structural one
When two people clash on a project, it’s easiest to see the emotions. Differences in character. Communication style. Ambitions.
It’s much harder to see the actual cause of those emotions.
Unclear roles and areas of responsibility.
Conflicting goals.
Uncertainty about who makes decisions.
Inconsistent and incomplete data.
In such a situation, each party can be right — from their own perspective.
Sales pushes for speed because they’re responsible for revenue. Product slows down because they’re responsible for quality and stability. Both sides are pursuing their goals. The organization, however, sets people against each other.
If in such a situation you focus solely on emotions, you might try to “fix the relationship.” Unsuccessfully.
Putting out a conflict between people without changing the context in which they operate means the issue will return. Perhaps with a different personnel configuration, but with the same tension.
That’s why team conflicts are valuable feedback. Not that someone is difficult and someone else too conservative. But that something in the architecture of responsibilities, goals, or decisions authority needs correction.
As long as you only look at people, you might not see the system. Because interpersonal relationships are often just the carrier of tension created by the structure.
What looks like the source isn’t always the source.
What’s next?
I talk more about how to recognize the real causes of team conflicts and how to distinguish a personnel problem from a structural one in episode 6 of the Founder 2.0 series, available in Polish and English.
And if tensions between people in your company are starting to affect results and you want to change that — let’s talk.