converting a ceo v coo catfight into a collaboration
I’ve seen this happen too many times. The CEO and the COO disagree. The one thing they seem to agree on is the intensity of the disagreement. It’s diametric. 1 vs -1.
The CEO believes she is ensuring the future of the company with a proposed bet. The COO (or CFO or General Counsel) believes she, in turn, is preventing near-term disaster and long-term dissolution. Each thinks the the other is crazy and stubborn - even, sometimes especially, when they have great respect for each other and are otherwise friends.
A vexing truth here is that they are both right. Fear not, though - there is a way out!
The structure of this disagreement is as follows:
The CEO wants to do a new, expensive, risky thing. The CEO often thinks the thing is simply new. The CEO also thinks this thing is Very Important. And often that it is Urgent. She needs it and she needs it as quickly as it can be done. Quicker, even. She’s bringing George S Patton energy to the case: “A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.”
For this new thing to come to life, the COO must do what COOs do - run operations. Deploy cash and people. Make things happen.
The COO does not want to do this new thing. The COO may think the new thing is interesting, promising, and mission-aligned. The COO also sees costs of this new thing that the CEO does not. The COO is an expert in making things happen and in making them continue to happen. This means the COO is an expert in swatting away distractions and mitigating risks. This new thing is distracting and risky.
In conversation, in the catfight, this sounds something like:
CEO: “We must do x!
COO: “X is crazy. We can’t do x.”
The catfight circles from there with salt and shade corresponding to the personalities and history of the cats involved. It can be entertaining! For about a minute.
The path out is to replace the catfight with a conversation. Specifically, shift from a dogfight about dogmas to a talk about tradeoffs. This usually requires more work from the COO than the CEO (like most things - God bless the COOs).
For the COO, instead of saying “x is crazy. We can’t do x.” - price out x. Use your superpower (keen awareness of data, sequencing, and team skillsets) to illustrate x instead of to illegitimate it. Start with the assumption that x is possible, then, in as even-handed a way as you can, quantify for your CEO what x would require. In some cases, what might be required is re-assigning whole divisions to work on the new thing; pausing production of an old thing; taking on frightening debt. Capture those costs and present them. “X is possible. Here’s my best estimate of what it requires.”
A few things can arise from this:
The CEO realizes that x is not just new, but quite expensive, and decides against pursuing x. You’ve “won” the argument.
The CEO identifies an opportunity hidden to you or reveals a move she can make that lowers the cost of x.
Sometimes this is through a relationship (getting a service for free from a friend; calling on an investor for bridge funding); sometimes it's through a platform the CEO has that you don’t (the bully pulpit; media; board meetings)
The CEO changes x to make it less costly.
You set up a mode of problem solving and conflict resolution that doesn’t depend strictly on intuition and risk appetite - two fickle, idiosyncratic parts of a leader’s thinking. You build trust in each other’s decision prep, not just in each other’s decision making.
A coda on incentives
One reason this conversation devolves quickly to a catfight is it pits the players’ incentives against one another. Each participant is effectively telling the other not to do the very thing they are there to do (take big swings; make all swings smooth and injury-free). This is one reason both can resort to epithets like “crazy” to describe the other - there’s a denial of someone else’s core responsibility, which lands as a denial of their reality. It feels like you’re being told facts are not facts.
The way out is to bring new facts to the table - facts that can be agreed upon and analyzed and extrapolated from with dispassion instead of papered over with passion.
The CEO, a good one, is constantly running a calculation, often defying the available facts and current context, asking herself, “are we maxing out who we are here to be and what we are here to do?” It’s a lot of what if.
The COO, a good one, is constantly running a calculation - usually dependent on the available facts and current context, asking herself, “are we protecting our assets and preparing systems that run farther and faster over time?” It’s a lot of what is.
In an effective relationship, both are doing their thing to the fullest and bringing the results of their thinking to the other for feedback, calibration, and decisions about what comes next.
They may not agree more than the cats do. But they disagree better. That makes all the difference.
-Eric
