If you’ve ever watched two smart people having the same argument for the tenth time, lean in…
I recently worked with a manufacturing business. They had a great track record, all the technical skills and expertise you’d expect, plus decades of experience. But, like many other firms trying to weather the current economic climate, they were seeing work orders stalling, competition increasing and costs on a purely upward trajectory. The three directors (engineers) had decisions to make to manage these challenges, and of course they needed to pull together to make it work. They needed to sit down and work out a strategy. But they were at loggerheads.
Working with these guys, what quickly became clear was that the root issue wasn’t really the strategy around capability, capacity, or even market positioning – it was alignment. Each director had a slightly different take on the challenges they faced and so had a different opinion about the right way forward.
One favoured cost control and consolidation, another wanted to double down on sales and marketing, while the third believed an innovation grant to develop new products was the answer. None of these perspectives were wrong. In fact, each had merit. But without a shared direction, even the best ideas risk cancelling each other out.
Our first step wasn’t to build a strategy, but to create the conditions for one. That meant slowing things down – something that felt pretty counterintuitive to a team of engineers used to solving problems through action! We set some simple but powerful ground rules: one person speaks at a time, assumptions are challenged constructively, and every viewpoint is fully heard before moving on. It sounds basic, but for many teams, this level of disciplined communication is surprisingly uncommon.
During the conversations, things started to shift. First, the directors began to genuinely listen to one another, rather than simply waiting for their turn to speak, in itself reducing tension and defensiveness. Then they started to recognise that having differing perspectives wasn’t necessarily an obstacle, but something to explore. If this could be harnessed, the diversity of thinking could actually turn out to be an advantage.
With that foundation in place, we moved on to clarifying their shared objectives – the common ground. What did success look like in 12 months? What were the non-negotiables? Where were they willing to take calculated risks? By anchoring the discussion in common goals rather than individual preferences, the tone shifted from conflict to collaboration.
From there, strategy development became far more straightforward. Instead of competing priorities, they agreed on a balanced approach: tightening operational efficiency to protect margins, while making targeted investments in business development and selectively exploring new product opportunities. Crucially, they also defined clear ownership for each area, to avoid ambiguity and ensure accountability.
For me, the most valuable outcome wasn’t the strategy itself – it was the way they could now genuinely work together.
They’d gained a new appreciation for structured communication and a commitment to regular, focused conversations about the business, rather than defaulting to reactive discussions on the hop.
For many organisations, especially those led by technically minded individuals, communication can be seen as a “soft” skill – something secondary to the real work. But as this example illustrates, it’s often the critical enabler of everything else. Without it, even the most experienced and capable teams can struggle to move forward.
Simply said, with the right conditions in place, you can discover clarity, alignment and momentum, even in the most challenging of circumstances.
Get in touch for strategic support, tailored workshops and CPD sessions.
liz@refreshingcomms.co.uk