Two executives can disagree about a proposal while avoiding the actual point of disagreement. They debate the forecast when one is concerned about customer trust and the other about a funding deadline.
The conversation becomes more useful when those priorities are stated plainly.
Establish what is contested
Ask each person to describe the decision, the outcome they want and the risk they are trying to avoid. Have the other person repeat the account before replying. This can expose a misunderstanding without requiring agreement.
Separate a dispute about facts from a dispute about priorities. More analysis may resolve the first. The second may require a decision from someone with authority to choose the tradeoff.
Avoid attributing motives that the other person has not expressed. An accusation about protecting territory is difficult to investigate and easy to defend against.
Give the discussion an ending
State who will make the decision and what information is still needed. If the team proceeds despite an objection, record the concern and the condition that would justify another review.
Afterward, check whether both leaders can explain the decision consistently to their teams. Continuing to argue through separate instructions transfers the unresolved conflict to employees.
Productive disagreement can be uncomfortable. It becomes wasteful when the organization repeatedly pays for a conflict its leaders have declined to name.
