Senior leaders are divided on a change initiative. How do you reconcile conflicting opinions effectively?

As a coach reconciling differences between two executives is a lot more difficult than encouraging each executive to fully outline his or her position on the change initiative. Once we have all the data in on both sides, I encourage each executive to determine the similarities of each position. Once having established the similarities, I then get them to look at the differences. This helps each executive to see how close or how different each view is from the other. This means that the differences are usually a lot less to deal with rather than dealing with the entire concept. Each executive feels valued for listening to each persons position on a charge decision and are more likely to negotiate over the differences.

When senior leaders are divided on a change initiative, the first step is to clarify the outcomes the initiative is designed to achieve. It's essential that all parties understand and agree on the goals to ensure alignment from the start. Next, gaining agreement that these objectives are beneficial and necessary for the organization is key to moving forward. To address differing opinions, it's helpful to conduct a best-case, worst-case, and most-likely-case analysis. This exercise provides a clearer picture of potential scenarios and helps leaders weigh the risks and rewards of the change. If division still remains, the final decision should rest with the most senior leader to ensure progress is not stalled.

Active listening is a skill. It's something we need to practice daily in all areas of our lives and the more we practice it, the most we see the benefits. If you want successful change, everyone needs to buy in, especially senior leaders. So if 2 senior leaders are in disagreement, the first thing you want to do is listen. People want to feel seen and heard - always. You can also employ activities such as Positive Intelligence where one states a point. The other finds something (at least 10%) that they can agree with, repeats that part then says AND and adds and idea to it. This ensures that each one is actively listening to the other. I would go back and forth with this until they come to an agreement.

I personally use the 12 week year with my clients and my team. However, it doesn't really matter what is used as long as something is used to identify overarching goals for the long term, the year, and the quarter. When these goals are established ahead of time - together, sometimes it's just a matter of reviewing the goals to see what new immediate goals will lead the team to achieve them. Reviewing key objectives and results can help. It's also important to establish which leaders/departments are responsible for what as much as possible ahead of time. Then it's setting the goals together for the initiative as a team. Asking questions to make sure they align with the overarching goals and that everyone is bought in.

Once having isolated the differences from the similarities of the differing viewpoints, we then look at the goals being reached. It is then that they are encouraged to mutually discover how each persons differing approaches reach the goals by looking through each others eyes and mindset. Once focused on the goals from each persons perspective, it is a lot easier to negotiate a consensus. Mutual discovery of each others differing approaches is encouraging each to look through the eyes and understand the mind set of the other

Once each senior executive has come to a consensus around the change. Since the outcome is a hybrid of each others thoughts, it is wise to encourage innovation and creativity together to model mutual collaboration and therefore encourage a position of trust and unity as opposed to proving oneself through opposition. To much is done in the corporate world as attempting to be the best instead of a valuable mutual asset to the team or organisation.

Two things to remember: 1. Differences build companies, keeping at bay ills like Groupthink unless those start to hurt the organizational goals. 2. Everyone has a unique worldview thanks to personality, experiences, biases, prejudices, personal goals, life outside work, weather etc. So, individual objectives, & securities take precedence over collective goals & priorities. One-on-ones are the starting point for consensus. Each one shares their plan, apprehension, and expected outcomes. Then open debates, 6 Thinking Hats, and ‘pre-mortem’ are some handy tools that usually get things done. Deft moderation is the key to success, followed by a clear rule – leaders may have differing ideas but once the group decides one must follow or leave.

Here are a few ideas: Schedule Regular Progress Reviews: Hold periodic check-ins to assess impact and gather feedback from senior leaders, adjusting the initiative as needed. Use Data-Driven Metrics: Track key performance indicators to provide objective evidence of progress and address differing opinions with clear, factual insights. Facilitate Joint Problem-Solving: Organize workshops for leaders to discuss perspectives and collaboratively resolve conflicts, aligning goals through shared solutions.