Management and the board disagree about what needs to happen next.

The board and the executive team have reached different conclusions about the position of the business and the action required. Both positions are argued from the same reporting.

Until the disagreement is resolved on evidence, the organisation will keep receiving mixed signals.

• The disagreement is managed socially rather than resolved factually.
• Each side commissions its own analysis.
• The executive team stops raising bad news.
• Decisions are deferred to the next meeting, repeatedly.
• The organisation reads the tension and slows down.

• What does the underlying data actually show about performance and trajectory?
• Which assumptions differ between the two positions?
• What decision is genuinely required, and by when?
• Is this a disagreement about facts, about risk appetite, or about confidence in management?
• What information would settle it?

• Establish one independent, evidence-based view of the position.
• Set out the realistic options with their consequences, including the cost of delay.
• Facilitate the decision rather than advocate a side.
• Reset reporting so both parties are governing from the same information.
• Support execution once the decision is made.