The 18-Month Delay Two Executives Cost by Not Sitting in the Same Room

The launch had slipped four times. Twice for architecture reasons, twice for what the project manager politely called cross-functional dependencies.

Cross-functional dependencies was the code phrase for the fact that the VP of Engineering and the Head of Product had not had a substantive one-to-one conversation in fourteen months. They spoke in leadership meetings. They exchanged Slack messages. Their teams did the actual coordination work between them.

The CEO knew there was tension. He had not known how expensive it had become until the project manager put a number on the delay in front of the board.

What the tension had cost

Eighteen months of delay compounded across three variables the CFO was able to price.

The first was revenue timing. The launch had been on the roadmap as a Q2 event. It was now a Q4 event. Two quarters of revenue had moved from the current fiscal year into the next. The board had priced this in as an execution issue.

The second was competitor entry. In the eighteen months between original launch and eventual launch, a smaller competitor had released a comparable feature and captured the early-adopter segment. Recovering that segment would now require a marketing spend that had not existed in the original plan.

The third was the layer of workaround the two teams had built to route around each other. Extra project managers. Extra sync meetings. A shared document that took a director-level engineer six hours a week to maintain. That layer had a fully loaded cost that would continue to accrue until the underlying conflict was addressed.

None of these three costs appeared on any dashboard as "the VPs are not talking." They all appeared as ordinary operational overhead. That was the expensive part. The organization had absorbed the tension into its operating model rather than name it.

How much is one unresolved conflict really costing your company?

What the CEO did on a Wednesday afternoon

He did not schedule an offsite. He did not hire a mediator. He booked ninety minutes on the calendar with both executives in his office. No agenda.

He opened by saying one sentence. "I have been letting the two of you route around each other for a year and it has cost the company eighteen months on this launch. That was on me. I am not asking either of you to resolve the tension. I am asking each of you to say, out loud, what you have been protecting yourself from with the other person in the room."

Neither of them spoke for a long time.

His Head of Product went first. She named a specific meeting from fourteen months earlier when the VP of Engineering had used a phrase that had made her feel dismissed in front of her team. She had never brought it up with him directly. She had rerouted her communication with him through a project manager instead.

The VP of Engineering listened. He did not defend himself. He did what Doug Noll's method calls affect labeling. He said, "You have been feeling dismissed by me for over a year, and I did not know it, and I am the reason we cannot ship." Her nervous system's threat response dropped in real time. She said, "Yes."

The conversation that followed took another sixty minutes. It surfaced two additional patterns neither of them had realized they were running. It did not fully resolve the tension. It reduced it to a manageable level. That was enough to unblock the launch.

Doug Noll's new book Empathy Leadership: The Powerful Skill That Drives Winning Results lays out the ninety-minute moves leaders use to unblock the executive tension their company has been paying for. See it here.

What the CEO learned from the delay

The delay was not the launch. The delay was the fourteen months he had let two of his most expensive executives avoid each other.

He built one small habit. Every month, in his one-on-one with each direct report, he asked one question. "Which one of your peers are you working around rather than working with?" The first three months, everyone said "nobody." By the fourth month, one of his executives named someone. By the sixth month, the answers were routine and specific.

None of the tensions his executives named turned into eighteen-month launches. They turned into ninety-minute conversations that closed in his office within the following week. Some of them were harder than others. All of them were cheaper than absorbing the cost into the operating model.

He did not become an expert at mediating conflict. He became someone who noticed conflict early and gave it a room to be spoken in. That was a smaller skill than he had assumed and a more expensive one to have gone without than he had understood.

‍