Third parties who set themselves up as the indispensable go-between for two people in conflict gain power by controlling what each hears and how their disputes get resolved.
An example
By spring, the chief financial officer of a cosmetics company had noticed that the head of brand and the head of supply chain had not been in a meeting together without the director of strategic planning since the autumn. Both cited him in budget discussions. He had told the head of brand that supply chain was hostile to the new skincare line, and told the head of supply chain that brand was about to escalate to the board. Each believed the other was in a bad place and that a direct conversation would make things worse. Meanwhile the planning director had started running the weekly launch call. When the chief financial officer finally put the two heads in a room for the launch review, each learned the other had agreed to a packaging compromise months earlier.
Why it works
Go-betweens push on the decision from both directions. Their indispensability makes going through them look better, and avoiding a direct confrontation makes it easier, since each principal can save face and let the message be softened. Meanwhile the direct route looks worse, because the messages each side receives have been edited, timed to irritate, or stripped of conciliatory signals, and costlier, because each is coached that the other is too upset to approach. A real but manageable conflict is the precondition, along with a go-between who has plausible ties to both and face-saving reasons for the principals to avoid contact.
The thinking behind it
Mark Granovetter People who connect otherwise separate groups carry information between them, Mark Granovetter showed in The Strength of Weak Ties (1973). A go-between who becomes the only link between two feuding principals controls what each hears. The defense is to restore a direct tie, because once the two meet and compare notes, the go-between stops being the only bridge.
Jeffrey Pfeffer Structural position, including centrality in networks of dependence, is the main source of power in Jeffrey Pfeffer's Power in Organizations (1981). A triangulator builds centrality by making two principals depend on them for each other's views, then converts it into an operating role. Leaders should therefore watch for intermediaries whose role keeps growing without any formal decision.
Warning signs
Two principals have not met without the intermediary for months, and both cite that person as their source on what the other thinks. Each believes the other is angrier or more extreme than their own dealings suggest. Conciliatory moves go nowhere. The go-between has gradually taken on an operating role, such as running a recurring meeting, and the conflict never quite resolves or boils over.
How to defend yourself
Meet the other party directly, in person if you can, and compare notes on what each of you has been told.
- Check specific claims at their source. If you hear the other side is about to escalate, ask them.
- Send important messages yourself, in writing, so your words arrive as you wrote them.
- If you are a superior or a peer who notices that two leaders only communicate through one person, insist on a direct meeting or say what you have seen.
Keep the go-between informed, and keep the direct channel open after the first meeting. The pattern tends to return if the principals drift apart again.
How a leader shuts it down
Watch for pairs of senior people who only communicate through one intermediary, and bring them together directly on shared decisions. Let an intermediary's operating role grow only by formal decision. Reward people who resolve conflicts between colleagues, and notice those who seem to gain from a conflict continuing.