4 phrases that quench conflict between CEO and Operations
At Dialogue and Influence, we often see how one unfortunate remark from a CEO can block operational work for 14 days. Conflicts on the board-production line usually result from a different understanding of priorities and language that attacks instead of informs. Below, we present methods proven in diplomacy that allow returning to facts without unnecessary emotions at the table.
Replace 'Why isn't this working' with the phrase 'What is blocking progress'
The word 'why' automatically puts the interlocutor in a defensive position. In April 2024, we observed a board session where the operations director spent 26 minutes explaining a delay instead of looking for a solution. In diplomacy, one avoids questions about causes that sound like an interrogation. Switching to a question about specific blockages changes the energy in the room. We speak directly about facts: we are interested in the result, not looking for excuses in the past.
Using the phrase 'What specifically is blocking our shipment at 2:00 PM?' allows the operational manager to switch to reporting mode. He does not feel attacked as a person, but as a process expert. In an FMCG company we worked with for 4 months, this one change shortened morning briefings from 34 minutes to just 12 minutes. This is a real saving of 1.5 hours of board work across the entire working week.
The question 'why' builds a wall. The question 'what is blocking' builds a bridge to solving the problem in 8 minutes.
Operating on data: 'I noticed a 14% difference in the report'
No unnecessary emotions at the table – that's our rule. Instead of saying 'your department works slowly', a diplomat will say: 'The analysis from May 12 shows a performance drop of 14% compared to the previous Tuesday'. Such a formulation is impossible to contest because it is based on numbers. An operational manager cannot take offense at a number. He must explain or fix it. A clear division of roles assumes that the board operates with indicators, not impressions.
In July 2024, we implemented this model in a plant near Legnica. Before the change, performance talks ended in silent days between the CEO and the production head. After introducing the 'language of indicators', the reaction time to a failure shortened by 19%. Directors learned that precision is respect. If you tell an employee it 'needs to be better', he doesn't know what to do. If you say '47 units are missing from the plan', he knows exactly what the goal is for the next 3 hours.
Confirmation of message reception: 'I understand that we have 3 limitations'
A mistake of many leaders is speaking at employees rather than with them. The diplomatic technique of summarizing the other side's statement ('paraphrasing') works wonders in tense situations. When an operational staff member talks about a lack of people, the CEO should respond: 'I hear that we are missing 4 people on the night shift and that is the main problem'. This gives the speaker a sense of being heard. Even if the CEO cannot immediately hire new people, simply acknowledging the fact extinguishes 41% of potential conflict.
We worked with a board that had a staff turnover problem at the level of 22%. It turned out that managers felt ignored by the top. Introducing the confirmation protocol (so-called 'active listening without judgment') reduced the resignation rate by 7% within 82 days. We speak directly about facts: people leave when their arguments bounce off a wall. 18 seconds to summarize what the employee said is enough for them to feel that their role in the company is respected.
Summarizing the interlocutor's words in 2 sentences extinguishes half the fires in internal communication.
Decision instead of discussion: 'I acknowledge this, I decide to...'
In business, as in diplomacy, there comes a moment when negotiations end. A diplomat knows when to close a topic and move to the final protocol. CEOs often make the mistake of allowing endless debates about the same problem for 3 consecutive meetings. A clear division of roles means that after hearing operational arguments, the board makes a sovereign decision. The phrase 'Thank you for these 4 arguments, I decide to choose option B' closes the matter without offense.
At the end of 2023, in a Wroclaw office building, we saw how a lack of decision blocked a project for 156,000 PLN. Everyone had a different opinion and no one wanted to take responsibility. Methods proven in diplomacy teach that an imperfect decision is better than no decision for 11 days. After introducing the 'listen - summarize - cut' structure, the company moved forward within 48 hours. A specific message about the end of the discussion gives the team security and a clear direction of action.
