Leveraging Leadership

Mediation Strategies Every Chief of Staff Should Know

• Emily Sander • Season 1 • Episode 229

Share episode

Alex Yaroslavsky talks about his journey from navigating conflict as a kid new to the U.S. to building a career in mediation and executive coaching. He shares how Chiefs of Staff can handle disagreements between colleagues, coach their principals through tough conversations, and recognize when workplace tension is productive versus damaging. Real examples include resolving misunderstandings rooted in different work backgrounds and managing your own emotional triggers when resolving conflict with a boss.


Links Mentioned:


Free Resources:

 

Get in Touch With Emily:

 

Who Am I?

If we haven’t yet before - Hi👋 I’m Emily, Chief of Staff turned Executive Leadership Coach. After a thrilling ride up the corporate ladder, I’m focusing on what I love - working with people to realize their professional and personal goals. Through my videos here on this channel, books, podcast guest spots, and newsletter, I share new ideas and practical and tactical tools to help you be more productive and build the career and life you want. 

 

Time Stamps:

00:44 Alex's Early Life and Immigration
02:27 Discovering Mediation
06:12 Understanding Conflict and Intention
09:58 Preparing for Reconciliation
11:51 Facilitating Productive Conversations
16:23 Managing Triggers and Emotional Responses
19:12 The Importance of Group Dynamics
20:09 Personal Experiences with Conflict
21:38 Navigating Conflict with Your Principal
27:21 Handling Constructive Tension
33:53 Balancing Group and One-on-One Conversations
35:45 The Four-Step Model for Conflict Resolution
37:44 The Role of Humor in Conflict Resolution
38:21 Resources and Contact Information

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

My guest today is Alex Yaro. Alex, how you doing?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Very well, good to be here.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Good to have you on. So let's just jump in. Can you give folks a quick background of, of yourself and how you got into your long career of mediation and now into conflict resolution?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

You bet. Yeah. So I was born in Ukraine in, uh, a town called Aviv. Um, and my parents were, um, were Jewish, so we left the Soviet Union due to persecution. And so even then I sort of got the sense from my family system that there was gonna be conflict in the system. You know, there were people who were with you or the people who were against you and so on. Then when I came to the United States, I had a whole different system of conflicts to navigate. I didn't know America, I didn't know how America worked. And my parents told me that I really kept quiet and didn't, didn't say anything for like three months until I was, I guess I must have been absorbing it all. And then, um, and then eventually, uh, and when I got to middle school, I started getting into conflicts of my own. So like one example of that is, uh. know anything about American football. So when I was picked to be, um, on, on the team, my, my job was to count one Mississippi, two Mississippi, and I knew that Mississippi was the river in the middle of the United States. I had no idea why we were yelling at, went okay most of the time, except at some point I got past seven Mississippi. And then got into eight Mississippi and all the kids started No, said, no, no, no. Rush him. Rush him. Meaning that I was supposed to rush the quarterback, but I didn't know that. So I thought they meant Russian. Russian. They made, they were making fun of me. And so I didn't really understand that. And so the kids got mad that I, I wasn't doing what I was supposed to, and they wanted to fight me, and I didn't really know how to deal with that. So I knew the word for tomorrow. So I said fight. Okay, tomorrow. And they said tomorrow. And then, so tomorrow became tomorrow. Tomorrow. And then I realized, you know, I can use the power of language to resolve conflicts.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Hmm.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

is what started me along this journey. Then I eventually became a mediator and I really took to that. And now I do a lot of work around executive coaching and how to deal with difficult personalities and how to lead people effectively.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes. And you, I mean, you kind of brushed over it, but mediation, you were like professor and you did kind of this, this illustrious kind of middle part of your career with that. Yes.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

So, uh, so in grad school, uh, I saw a, a flyer that's a free mediation training. And at that point I didn't know what mediation was. I was interested in negotiation at the time and talking, but not necessarily. I didn't know what the process was and, and I got the free training and I really took to it. And so there are some people, I think we maybe talked about this before, some people are, uh, have a talent for singing or playing the piano, what have you. And I don't have any of those. But, uh, but for mediation, I discovered that was my talent, that I'm able to hear one person understand their perspective and then hear another person understand their perspective and sort of have a bird's eye view of what's happening. And then I'm able to feed it back to the people so they can understand I. How, uh, they're, they play a role in this and then hopefully coach them to resolution.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah, and I mean, one of the things that I've, I've heard you speak about is. Helping people understand how their actions impact others, which a lot of times people are like oblivious. They just like, they are unaware. Now sometimes they kind of have an inkling and they do it anyway. But I'm wondering kind of how that feeds into, you know, in the business world when leaders or colleagues are, are doing a certain behavior and it's like you, you seem oblivious to the effect on the team here.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

So I'll give you one example of this. Uh, this was a, a recent. that I had with two, uh, coworkers. One was the manager of the other, and so the there, the president of the company called me in and said, I need help because I have these two valuable people. They think they're really great. They seem to really be at odds, and one person is thinking of quitting. Maybe both will quit, and I, and I just, I want the problem solved. I don't know what to do. So I spoke with each of them. And so each of them had a very different context of what was happening. one person had been a longtime employee at the organization, and, um, through a series of organizational shifts, she wound up being moved further and further away from where she was in the job that she liked. And her job was very sensitive, uh, the one that she had before this current role. And so, in her mind. She was always thinking about what is the least I can say to still, still do my job, not to betray confidences. And then she gets, uh, this new employee who has no idea about the organization and was promised that she would grow in the organization and do all these things. so now the two of them are speaking and they're speaking from entirely two different places. And so when the, the new person was complaining to me, she's complaining to me about a secret of non-transparent manager, which is kind of true, but not because of anything personal, not because of anything she has against the new person, just because that's the way that she thinks. That's for context. Of course when this person, when the new person gets this message, she feels, um, let's not just say negatively, uh, to toward the organization and toward the manager. And so once we are able to figure out their different context and their intentions versus their impact, then they really had one giant cathartic conversation. And from then on, they're fine because they're actually two really good human beings and two good employees.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

And I find that a lot of times people will assume things and they have like this gap and void of information. So they'll fill it and they'll create a narrative in their head. And sometimes that's like kind of. Close to the truth. Truth, and sometimes it is like oceans away. Um, and so I'm wondering is, is, you know, where does the step of, let's identify the intention here, which you could still have issue with, right? Like you could like, okay, I fully understand your intention. I hear you, I understand you. I'm gonna repeat back what you said to make sure that. You know that I understand and I still disagree with that, but where is the step of, let's just get our cards on the table here. What, like what did you intend to do when you were doing this, this, and this?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Here's what happens in our brain. We have a structure in our brain called the amygdala. So part of our limbic system, it's our animal brain, and it doesn't have language. It's just wired for threat detection, it's very, it's very necessary to evolution.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yep.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

is less necessary to today's corporate environment, but it activates anyway. And it, because it's a, it's a more primal system. It activates before the language gets activated. we sense something and our limbic system senses potential danger. I. Then our brain, our prefrontal cortex, tries to make sense of that messaging. What could it be? is when we start filling in the blanks with, it could be that this person is bad and they're after me. It could be that I'm about to get fired, et cetera, et cetera. Then we start believing our own story because we heard it in our head. And so if that's what my brain is telling me, it must be true, and therefore, then we act on that experience. Of course, other people have their very different experience, and that is often where conflict happens.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah. So how do you go about uncovering the intention just as like a baseline, Hey, let's get like level set everyone. Let's actually talk about what we're talking about here. How do you kind of have that initial conversation? I.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah, so first I speak with each person separately so that they, there's no audience except for me, I ask them to tell me the story their beginning. So I do that. Um, and at a, at a sort of, at a simple level, I go and I ask each person that question, and everyone's beginning is often different,

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Oh.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

So that's the big, that's the first, first PA piece of that. I also watch their body language. To, to see, how are they acting as they're telling me the story, what is really salient to them? And then I ask the question of what are they not saying? And or how come they're using that particular word? And I, I would ask that how come you're using the word betrayed? Because I hear that this person did this. What makes it a betrayal? For

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Mm-hmm.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

and then they tell me, they tell me, oh, they, they're happy to tell me what makes it a betrayal. And often what makes it a betrayal is that this act is similar to another act I have had in my past when I classified that as a betrayal, which may be a betrayal, it just may be a false positive. And so we wanna ask that question.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yep.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

how I typically uncover it. I, by having these conversations of asking, how do you know this is true? What makes you say that? Or How come using that particular word? And I, I don't challenge, uh, in the sense of telling them this is the wrong word by any means, but I want to know more about how come they made that choice. And that's how the story comes out.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Okay. And so you have the conversation with the two separate people. And then my next question is around when you get the two people together, and just to set context for this, you're speak, we're speaking with a lot of chiefs of staff here who are doing kind of a lot of these, um, brokering conversations or building bridges or mediation conversations with C-suite executives, with principals, with all these different, uh. Players in the organization. So, um, I'm imagining someone saying like, yes, I have these two folks who don't see eye to eye. They're at odds with each other. Okay. So I have the first two separate conversations, and then how do I actually bring them to resolution? So what would be the next step?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

So that last conversation is in some ways the easiest because all the hard work is done beforehand, and those separate conversations sometimes take several passes. So I would have one conversation with one person, then another, then we do it again and maybe do it again after that. And the reason I do that is one for horse trading. So one person tells me, well, I'm willing to to concede this point, but then I would need these assurances. So then I go back to their person and say, how do you respond to that? By the way, it's very important when I, when I do that to ask for permission. So, so that the people know that I am revealing information, that they are okay with me revealing.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Sure.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

saying anything that, that they, they decide is confidential. But, um, and, and by the way, sometimes that's a negotiation where they would say to me, you know, no, no, don't, don't tell this person. And then I might have to ask, well, if I don't tell'em, how will they know? This is what you want. Then I get that release fine. You can tell'em that sort of thing. but so I have those, those conversations and by the time we're done, I actually wanna set the stage for a reconciliation conversation. And what I say is something like, so Emily, I. I am going to say this. Hello. We're gonna speak with Alex and Emily and what I would like you to do then is maybe,'cause Alex needs to hear you say that you understand that he didn't mean any harm by this, so I would appreciate it if you said that. I think that would make the conversation easier so that you would agree to do that. And then you would say, well, maybe then, but Alex don't need to hear an apology from Alex for treating me the way he did in that meeting. And then I make sure that Alex knows that when Emily says this, I'm gonna cue Alex and say, Alex. And how do you respond to what Emily's saying? Alex, by that point knows that he will say, give an apology. And if he doesn't, I will redirect him. Um, so. Because it's important then maybe for you to hear that piece. And I know that, so I'm, I'm gonna make sure you hear it. Um, and that's how the conversation goes. And once we're past those first few scripted moments, usually then people relax and the conversation really goes,

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Okay, so there's a bit of framing that goes into it where like, let's just make sure this gets kicked off in a productive way. And so you're doing kind of, um. Little staging there. And then do you kind of step back and let the two people have just, just whatever organic conversation unfolds, or are you still kind of guide, guiding the conversation in a general direction?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

It depends on the goal and depends on whether people are doing and whether or not There are sometimes unearthing new old wounds that I hadn't heard of. And then I would say, well,

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Mm.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

that's something we wanna go into doing. Um, what I wanna be careful and the, the word you use is productive conversation. I certainly agree with the sentiment of that. What I wanna do in that conversation is not have my own agenda of what productive means unless I'm a principal, but rather ask the two people what. Is your agenda for a successful conversation. Okay, Alex, you wanna hear Emily say that she's gonna, you know, do this or this and this. Okay. And then what are you willing to do in return? Okay. Emily, same thing here. And usually then I would remind both people, I hear you both saying what you really want is figure out a way to collaborate on this project. how is this conversation helping us toward that goal? Or do you have a different goal? And usually that type of framing. Prompts people to say, okay, that's right. Okay. We are going, heading down to that goal.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

And one thing that I've done in the past as chief of staff is. Is identify the overall objective. And normally that's the, that's the same thing for all parties involved. So let's say I'm talking with, um, I'm just gonna make like, uh, A CFO and a Chief Revenue Officer, and then I'm chief of staff. And so we're all trying to, um, grow revenue for the company. This is just a basic example, right? So like, we all want that, and that's very important to us for various reasons, but we all want that. So laying out, hey. I'm trying to get us to this, like, I want us to be able to grow revenue. CROI want you to be able to look good in front of your team and in front of the board. CFOI want you to be able to report on X, Y, and Z to your team and your stakeholders, et cetera. Is, is there, uh, a place for like, Hey, like let's identify the objective or goal we're trying to get to and have some commonality in that. Is there, is there a place for that or is it really, you know, you tell me what you're trying to get to and then. Second person over here, you tell me what you're trying to get to and we'll try to find, uh, a common path to something, to something in a, in the same general direction.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

So yes. Yes, and yes for sure. There is a place for a common goal and in a role of a, uh, you know, a chief of staff or COO, you want, you want to say, this is what I say from my seat, as our goal, do we align on this? And usually the devil's in the details a little bit because as long

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

I.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

all aligned on the revenue target of, I dunno, 10% growth, let's say everyone says Yes, 10% is our number, then it's okay. Then somebody might say, well, it's 10% risk adjusted. So what does risk then mean? And then people can have different definitions around that. And that is where usually you have differences of perspective. And the question is, are these mutually exclusive or are they complimentary?

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Hmm.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

And if they're complimentary, let's discover that that's a win-win solution. And if they're mutually exclusive, then let's do some kind of a negotiation to see what is acceptable to the group. And that is appropriate tension. And I would say this is good tension that we're having. Let's smile and deal with it. This is not a personal thing. Uh, and usually when people kind of, they relax into it, they realize like, oh, this is okay. Like we actually get paid to, to have this tension. That's fine. So that the other person isn't bad, they're just doing a different job.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

So you kind of segued into, um, productive conflict or whatever words you want to use there. But there is, there is, you know, there's healthy stress and then there's destructive stress, there's healthy conflict, there's destructive conflict. Um, and I'm wondering, you know, one of my. Goals when I, when I play this mediation role, not officially like you, but this unofficial mediation role as chief of staff was to get these two team members to be able to speak constructively without me in the room. Like they need to be adults and like be able to have these conversations'cause they're key players in our organization and they just have to have conversations. That's just part of the nature of the business. So part of my goal was how do I make it so they can go off and do this on their own and have those, those. Uh, conversations where there is tension and they are butting heads, but it's all within a, you know, professional, collaborative wrapper, if you will. So how do you move, how do you move these two, uh, individuals in our example to that phase?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah. So when I hear you say they need to be adults in the room, what I imagine, uh, it means that they must have trust and understanding of their particular roles as opposed to trigger each other and get into a dramatic disagreement.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes, that would be accurate.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Happens. And so in order to do that, one is they need the framing. So they would need to hear from someone in your seat to say, it is perfectly okay for you guys to have conflict, um, as long as it is within these, you know, this paradigm. So to give people permission to disagree and then give them the tools. So when you hear so and so say, we need to manage risk, that's appropriate. So ask, them to explain that and then make sure that you're able to. Hear the other and make sure you're able to speak in the other's language, please understand it.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Hmm.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Um, but then the other piece is the triggering piece that often human beings trigger each other, and that is what every person has to be able to mind themselves. So when their amygdala goes off, they have to be able to say, that is my amygdala. It is not your fault. And that is often where the training lies

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

That's easier said than done.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

for everyone. The

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

of

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

And I. Yeah. And I was, I was, I was, um, I forget where I heard this. Uh, I either read it or a podcast, and they were basically talking about the amygdala, which is, as you said, the reptilian part of the brain that kicks in with like survival. Like, Hey, something rustled in the bushes. Uh, my life could be under threat. I'm gonna, I. I'm gonna get ready to fight or flight. And then our neocortex in those moments, as I understand it, gets shut down. So it's like our, um, forward thinking and executive function, all of that got gets shut down. And I've had clients say, Emily. Like, my brain turns off. I don't feel like myself when I, I can feel my heart pounding when like this trigger happens and I'm like, yep, that's like, I think that's the effect of your near cortex shutting down. And so we wanna be able to fire that thing back up so you can think with, with your entire brain and bring your whole self to it. Um, like that's like a intrinsic, like very. Baseline primitive thing that happens though. So how do you get people to recognize that and then cycle out of that in the moment?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah. The brain does not come with an owner's manual. Right? It'd be really nice if it did, and that is actually part of what I show people, uh, about their structures. I, so I often show them the brain, I point to the amygdala. To explain to them, this is an actual thing. It's a physical thing you have, and it's actually part of our mammalian system. So the, the reptilian part is the, uh, danger. Like there's sunlight, there's, you know, there's a danger. Let's just scurry away. the amygdala is very sensitive to social threats. So anytime we have the risk of being excommunicated not included in a group, being less than that is when it goes off.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

that is for mammals, really important to be in clumps because as mammals we're relatively weak. We don't survive. We need to be in a group. So that's the function of the amygdala, is to prevent us from straying too far so that we have the benefit of the, um, the group as a, as a means to our survive. So,

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

when that is threatened, that's when it, we get really jolted and we can't think straight. So I say all that because I explain that to the, to my clients so that they can have some humor about this so that once they understand it, they have a little bit of a balcony perspective of it, and then they would say, oh, my amygdala's going off. Now how do you know? Oh, I'm all tingly. I'm all wired up like I'm, there's a part of me that's really ready to fight. then once they have the language and once they're able to label their emotions, they're able to relax that part of the brain, and then the prefrontal cortex comes back online faster.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah. It's so funny you mentioned that because, um, when I was first going to board meetings, I would have this like intense, just like I could hear my heart beating in my chest and in my ears, and I would get, my temperature would rise and I would feel like my shoulders go like this and tense up. And, um, I was working with my coach at the time and we went through a whole series of discussions, but the funny part we came to, which was like my brain was, was going back into kind of caveman days saying, you know, the, the. Competing tribe is coming at you with like spears and arrows and they're flinging them at you, which is like a silly, silly picture now'cause that's not happening. Um, but that just kind of brought some levity and humor to it. And the interesting thing that was happening for me is I knew that my, like physical survival was not in danger, but a lot of times people's identities. Get put in the place of your actual physical, like bodily harm. So like if your identity and your image is under threat, that becomes like a survival trigger. Uh, and so for me it was, I would kind of, uh, rub my fingers together, have a tactile sensation and just say, I'm. I'm safe, I'm safe in my head. And that would kind of cycle me out when I was having those first board meetings where it's like, these are the leaders, these are the ones who can decide to excommunicate me. IE fire me from the tribe, from the company. Um, so it was so interesting that you gave that, you gave that example. Um,

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Hundred

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

anything else?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

very

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

describing. Thank you for sharing that.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, I'm wondering if we move from like, okay, I'm a chief of staff. I mediated between two colleagues to, I'm a chief of staff and my principal, let's say the CEO and I are having some sort of conflict where, you know, there's, there's natural conflict and things that happen within the bounds of any business relationship. And then there's like, this is kind of getting off the rails and I'm not quite sure I can trust this person or talk to this person openly. How would you go about. Mediating that if, if you are one of the parties involved?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah. So you wanna resolve your own conflict and you're feeling some distrust.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes. And it's with your principal, so this is with your boss.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So in this hypothetical, can you give me a little bit of, of a con of context of what would cause the mistrust to occur? Like how, what would, what would, how would it go from a regular business disagreement to uh oh. Like there's a problem.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Um, let's, let's use the example of, uh, this person is. Not bringing the chief of staff. So it's not bringing me into the decisions is kind of ostracizing me from the important meetings. I'm not aware of things going on, I'm being kind of being regulated to the sidelines and just doing the minutiae pieces and it's like, hey, I'm here to be chief of staff. Um, tell me like, what's happening? Why, why aren't we having deeper conversations?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah. Okay. So this is, uh, if I were coaching the chief of staff, here's what I would say. would say, I am hearing that you expect to be invited to this meeting on Monday at 10, but you did not get that invitation, and then you would say to that.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

And how do you know that that is intentional ostracism as opposed to anything else?

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

This is a one data point and a trend that I'm seeing where I used to be invited to these things. I used to be on email threads. I used to be, uh, consulted and asked for my advice on things, and now those appear to be going, those are going away. Those becoming fewer.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Got it. So there was a period of time when you felt, uh, uh, closer in interactions. There were more asks of you by your principal, and then at some point you realized there were fewer. And this is an example of the, of those fewer points.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes,

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Okay. When did you first notice, and by the way, this, this is also, you can do this to yourself. This is just me

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

sure.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

this experience. When did you first notice that this was an issue for you? That it mattered?

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

I would say, let's just say these things started happening, um, like two months ago. And at first it was like, you know, one offs here and there. And then when it became a, when I thought it became a trend, that's when it became meaningful to me.'cause that's my role and that's, you know, am I not doing a good job? Um, is, is there something wrong per se? So like, let's just say about a month ago.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Great. Okay, so then I would say a month ago or now is a, is a great time to bring up these observations to your principal and actually ask them for context. Because a lot of the stuff, the rest of this is meaning, meaning making, which we could be true but could also not be true. What we know is true is there was a period of time when you were closer and you got more questions, and then at some point you noticed that was different. And one example of that is the fact that there's a Monday morning meeting that you didn't get invited to. I

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes. And to add further context, I had these conversations with my principal. I'm, I'm, I'm parroting what I've heard from many chief of staff here, um, uh, with my principal and I, I asked this, I ask about this and I. Uh, I feel like I'm getting a brush off answer, like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, no, no, no. It's just, it's not that everything's fine. I'm just, you know, you're gonna be off on this thing here, so it's kind of a brush off. But I feel over and over again that like, hmm, that's not quite the full story. And they seem like they're avoiding having this conversation. I'm trying to engage with them and reciprocating.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

What were the questions that you, you asked how, how did you have that discussion with the principal?

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Uh, let's just say, um, I noticed that I wasn't invited to the meeting at Monday at 10, um, this one on Thursday, and then I got taken off of these couple email threads that I'm normally on. And I was wondering, you know, is there, uh, is there a reason for that?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Got it. Yeah, so notice how you didn't bring in your context, which was, I remember a time before when this didn't happen, and then now I noticed that it is happening. And I think that context is really important because it could be that by the way, something is wrong and, and, and this person is just being either passive aggressive or just avoidant and trying to brush you off. Like it's that totally possible. And I would probably say that there's some anxiety over speaking with you about this. And so there's some non-zero component of that piece of their avoidance, but I'm not sure that's a hundred percent. Of the equation, because part of this is your, your experience, how you've noticed something that's meaningful to you, and that is on its own important, doesn't mean that there's anything bad happening. So I would have suggested that you say, here's what happened before, for the past six months, this is my experience about how much contact we've had. And now I'm noting, noting a shift. And I am curious and what I, the way I would say is I'm curious how much of that is. Circumstantial, like something nothing to do with me versus how much of that is something to do with me and, and let the person speak to that and something to do. Notice how I'm not saying did I do anything wrong? Something to do with me is an open question for them to then then say,

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

half of it is circumstantial and half of it is I think whatever. Maybe there's something I

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

not doing, or maybe your role's changing or whatever else.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes. No. So like your tips are, provide context. I'm curious about X, Y, and Z. Um, how much of this has to do with me, which is like hitting the nail on the head. And then, so let's say ev like people,

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

and how much

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

go ahead.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

That's the other piece. And also say how

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Hmm.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

let

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

How much of it doesn't.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Sorry.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah, yeah. No, no, thank you. And I mean, there's so many ways, like there's, I always tell people, don't assume there's a hundred different reasons. Maybe there's like a merger and acquisition, or maybe someone's leaving and they're prepping you, they're giving you deniability for something, and then they're gonna bring you back in the fold in a bigger role. Like I've seen this happen time and time again. Let's just say for hypothetical purposes, that like this person, like the chief of staff is picking up on something. And the principal, the CEO in this case is. Is just brushing them off. Um, is there a point at which it's like, this is unsolvable'cause they're my boss, they call the shots and if they're unwilling to engage with me, then I, like, I don't, I don't have a leg to stand on in, in one respect.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

So I would say that if you, if you ask the question in this open-ended way, how much of it is having to do with me? How much of it, nothing to do with me. a really good opportunity for your principal to say this has nothing to do with you, so you're doing a great job. are some things that are happening. Don't worry. Stay put, and all will be revealed in due time or some version thereof, in which

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yep.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

got the message. It's not you. Or the conversation could be things are changing. You know? I think maybe the role is shifting. I, I think maybe your skills would be used elsewhere or whatever else is going on, in which case also are getting a message of something. So if the

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yep.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

is, being shifty when you are being open, I think that is an indication to me that there's a red flag,

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Mm. Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

but you have

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

first. And most people will be open with you. And that's also an opportunity to say, you can say, is there something that I need to be doing differently? Upskilling, shifting the way I'm approaching this. Like any person would say, thank you very much for asking. Yes, I would love for, for you to think bigger now as opposed to just tactical or something else like that. And that's an, that's a conversation for changing the what you do in your value add. And if the person is completely, unwilling to speak about it, my guess honestly would be that they're looking to get out. And so they don't have time in their brain space for you, but not because of you, but because of them.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah, that's an interesting point. Yeah, I've seen that scenario too, and I think what you said, highlight something else really important is. A lot of times chiefs of staff have to coach their principal and sometimes it's very meta where it's like, we need, I need to coach you on how to speak to me. And so being open, like you said, and transparent is like, here, let me just demonstrate. Like let me go first type of thing. And then sometimes I've found that I. When chiefs of staff give them like examples or like open the door, like, is it this? Or like, you know, I know, could I be doing this differently in this type of meeting? Or is it this that just opens the door where it's like, it's not, you know, it's not quite that, but this, this, this, and this over here might be something that we can look at and that just opens the door. So I love that you, that you mentioned that a few, just a few things as we wind down here. Um, how do you tell if it's. If it's, uh, productive tension or constructive tension versus, oh, this is off the rails. I mean, one of my things, uh, that tells is like, if someone's personally attacking like someone's, uh, like person or like attributes, like we're not talking about the work or the project or how we showed up at the client meeting. It's, you know, you are a morally bad person.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah, I think both people have to agree on what is in, in, in bounds and what is out of bounds and, and that is sometimes dictated by company policies and and laws,

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

sometimes it's a negotiation between people. So for example, I. one person, um, comes from a culture where slamming their fist on the desk is just a normal course of doing business, but another person finds that extremely frightening. I.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

there's no, uh uh, you know, the, the fist is going down onto the table, not at the person. Right? So that, but that's an example of, hey, out of bounds for me, like I, I'm not comfortable speaking to you. Doesn't matter what the issues are with you being physical like that, and that, then it's a point of consideration of if that's how you want you to hear it, then I have to adjust. So that, I would say having conversations like that, I mean, this is an extreme example, but it could be when, when the other person is triggered is when the problem is whoever is triggered. The other person, I would say, owes them some consideration to, to avoid triggering them as much as possible. I.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Okay. Is there any other tells to where like, this is like, okay, as chief of staff, you're often sitting in team meetings where it's like. Part of this is good, like let this conversation happen. It's like people are kind of getting animated about it, but that's actually a good thing versus, okay, now it's gone out of bounds. I need to guide it back in bounds or call timeout. Hey, stop. Is there any other tells to look for with that? Yep.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

if people are getting shut down and you know, part of it's watching the room and when someone gets quiet, when someone, one person gets overly aggressive, assertive, and that causes the other person to back away, that's a time to say it was that intentional. And what was going on there, and then maybe have a debrief afterwards and say, yeah, this did not go as planned in a negative way. And then I'm using very diplomatic language, right? So this, this was, this went off. Right. Um, and so we don't wanna have a repeat of that. So first let's figure out, you know, Alex, you raised your voice, Emily, and it cost Emily to not speak something. Alex, you owe her a conversation. And that's something that should be, that, that would be in that chief of staff role to say. So then

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

listen, didn't mean it. That was just, I got too passionate about so and so. And so then we have that, and, and by the time we have the next meeting, Emily and Alex are actually closer as coworkers because of that.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Mm-hmm.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

conversation rather than people are sitting kind of back and, and, uh, seeing what, you know, seeing what happens next. So I think that's part of the role. And then the other part is to overtly say it's okay for us to disagree and I'm gonna be the referee in my role here. So your job is to be passionate and my job is to say out of bounds and blow the whistle. And if people agree on that, then that could also work.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah, well back to your like American football example. You know, when they throw the flags where there's a penalty, it's kinda like, okay, like you guys go at it, like you guys go at it hard and then I'll just throw a flag if like, look, that argument has no basis in kind of what we're talking about here. Um, before I forget, one question is. High level guidelines on what you say in a group setting versus what you say afterward one-on-one. So it might be like at the group level, it's like, Hey, like just time out. We're gonna go in this direction. And then afterward, like in the hallway, or you know, the next day, you have that one-on-one conversation with the different participants.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

I would say avoid shaming people in a group setting. So I would not say, uh, at this point to Alex. Alex, you are out of line.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

I would not say that. I would say on the other hand something like, you know, I'm hearing this conversation and I think we, we reached a heat level of eight and I think we wanna stop at a seven and a half, so let's pause this and let's continue that. And that gives people the message like, okay, like that's a nice way of saying enough cool off. And

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

you know, I've noticed when that happened, you did this. And that is something we wanna avoid in the future. Something like that, that's a private conversation. So then people can save face and clear things up without being publicly shamed. I.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Right. What would you say in terms of avoiding conflicts we've talked about like, hey, there's, there's this good kind of conflict which you wanna engage in. Um, are there times where it's like, you know what? I feel like I wanna give this person a piece of my mind, but right now is not the time, right now is not the time to have that, that conversation

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

I, I'm not actually a big fan of avoiding, but I'm a fan of postponing, is what I'm hearing you say. So.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

tomorrow.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Tomorrow. Tomorrow, right? Yeah. So you wanna, you want to express, and I would also say if you wanna give someone a piece of your mind, I would not give'em a piece of your mind. I would say, what is it you want? Deal with your drama internally and then come out, say something when you actually have something curious to ask about what happened or something that you want to explain that happened to you. And, and so I have a kinda a four step model of that. Care, clarity, curiosity, and choice. So care means you have to remember there's a human being there, even though you disagree. Uh, clarity is doing that internal work of saying, what am I solving for? What is my trigger? What do I really want? And that happens before the conversation. Curiosity. It happens at the conversation. So instead of giving a piece of your mind, you go in saying, here's what happened on my side. What happened on your side?

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Then choice is about, I want to offer the other person a chance to figure out how to help me rather than tell'em what to do. don't wanna control, just wanna give'em what the end point is.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yes, so.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

a 10% risk adjusted growth that?

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Gotcha. And the last thing I'll leave us with is hitting on something you just you mentioned earlier, which is that, um, conflict and these even heated, heated arguments can bring people closer together. And that's a huge piece.'cause after you've kind of gone to battle, there is that sense of like, now we're somehow closer, which is like interesting dynamic. So can you touch on that to wind us down here?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah, as long as, as people understand again what they are doing, it's okay to battle as long as they, it's in the context of our, of our. Ongoing positive relationship. And

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

to make amends when things are, uh, when things are heated. And I'll give you a perfect example. I was speaking to one of my closest lifetime friends, I've known each other for 45 years, and, um, and our discussion got heated and I sort of said, you kidding, this is not so, et cetera. And this guy said, look, I'm sorry. I did not mean to upset you. And I really wasn't mad at him. I was just sort of passionate about the discussion, but the fact that he actually said that, that he what, he showed his care toward me. And so that actually brought us closer, even after the 45 years even closer because this guy, you know, really like, he feels it and he cares about me. So that was a very happy ending to a discussion that was, if you'd hear it in the middle, it would be very loud and boisterous.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah. And I remember one time I was like, we were in this like group conversation and this, we were talking about like 24,000 something, I think it was dollars or conference attendees or something. I think it was a dollars for a conference. And then this, this person, like, it's gonna be a million and a 2 million, blah, blah. And we were like, what? Like this is like totally. And I was like. I was like, let's call him Rob. Like I was like, Rob, did you just say a million? He was like, that was just for a dramatic effect and everyone just started laughing. It was like, okay, we're not even talking in the realm, but laughing is, is a big one. It broke the ice.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Perfect. Alex, you've shared so much and I'm sure it's just tip of the iceberg for everything that you do in your body of work. If someone is listening as like, um, yes, I need to hear more from Alex. What are some resources where, where can they reach out to you? What is the best place to connect with you?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

Yeah. So go to conflict yes.com. And, uh, that is my website there. I have resources there, and you can also contact me and I'll, I'll be happy to, to chat with you about ways that we can work together.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

And do you work with, um, individuals, with teams? Do you do workshops? What types of things do you offer?

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

I typically work with teams and organizations, um, but if an individual has a problem at work in the context of that, I'm happy to chat about that as well. And I offer trainings, group coaching, and individual one-on-one coaching, as well as, of course, conflict resolution for those emergencies.

emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080248:

So conflict yes. Dot com. We'll have that in the show notes. Alex, thank you again.

alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025_110249:

My pleasure. Thank you.