November 17, 2025 • 39 mins
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:
- Strategic Planning Checklist
- Chief of Staff Skills Assessment Checklist
- A Day in the Life of a Chief of Staff
- Chief of Staff Toolkit
Get in Touch With Emily:
- Connect on LinkedIn
- Follow on YouTube
- Learn more about coaching
- Sign up for the newsletter
- Clarity Call 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
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (00:25):
My guest today is Alex Yaro.
Alex, how you doing?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (00:28):
Very well, good to be here.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (00:31):
Good to have you on.
So let's just jump in.
Can you give folks a quickbackground of, of yourself and
how you got into your longcareer of mediation and now into
conflict resolution?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (00:43):
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 gotthe sense from my family system
that there was gonna be conflictin the system.
You know, there were people whowere with you or the people who
were against you and so on.
(01:04):
Then when I came to the UnitedStates, I had a whole different
system of conflicts to navigate.
I didn't know America, I didn'tknow how America worked.
And my parents told me that Ireally kept quiet and didn't,
didn't say anything for likethree months until I was, I
guess I must have been absorbingit all.
And then, um, and theneventually, uh, and when I got
to middle school, I startedgetting into conflicts of my
own.
So like one example of that is,uh.
(01:27):
know anything about Americanfootball.
So when I was picked to be, um,on, on the team, my, my job was
to count one Mississippi, twoMississippi, and I knew that
Mississippi was the river in themiddle of the United States.
I had no idea why we wereyelling at, went okay most of
the time, except at some point Igot past seven Mississippi.
And then got into eightMississippi and all the kids
(01:49):
started No, said, no, no, no.
Rush him.
Rush him.
Meaning that I was supposed torush the quarterback, but I
didn't know that.
So I thought they meant Russian.
Russian.
They made, they were making funof me.
And so I didn't reallyunderstand that.
And so the kids got mad that I,I wasn't doing what I was
supposed to, and they wanted tofight me, and I didn't really
know how to deal with that.
So I knew the word for tomorrow.
(02:10):
So I said fight.
Okay, tomorrow.
And they said tomorrow.
And then, so tomorrow becametomorrow.
Tomorrow.
And then I realized, you know, Ican use the power of language to
resolve conflicts.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (02:24):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (02:24):
is what started me along this
journey.
Then I eventually became amediator and I really took to
that.
And now I do a lot of workaround executive coaching and
how to deal with difficultpersonalities and how to lead
people effectively.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (02:38):
Yes.
And you, I mean, you kind ofbrushed over it, but mediation,
you were like professor and youdid kind of this, this
illustrious kind of middle partof your career with that.
Yes.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (02:46):
So, uh, so in grad school, uh, I saw
a, a flyer that's a freemediation training.
And at that point I didn't knowwhat mediation was.
I was interested in negotiationat the time and talking, but not
necessarily.
I didn't know what the processwas and, and I got the free
training and I really took toit.
And so there are some people, Ithink we maybe talked about this
before, some people are, uh,have a talent for singing or
(03:08):
playing the piano, what haveyou.
And I don't have any of those.
But, uh, but for mediation, Idiscovered that was my talent,
that I'm able to hear one personunderstand their perspective and
then hear another personunderstand their perspective and
sort of have a bird's eye viewof what's happening.
And then I'm able to feed itback to the people so they can
understand I.
How, uh, they're, they play arole in this and then hopefully
(03:32):
coach them to resolution.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (03:34):
Yeah, and I mean, one of the things
that I've, I've heard you speakabout is.
Helping people understand howtheir actions impact others,
which a lot of times people arelike oblivious.
They just like, they areunaware.
Now sometimes they kind of havean inkling and they do it
anyway.
But I'm wondering kind of howthat feeds into, you know, in
the business world when leadersor colleagues are, are doing a
(03:59):
certain behavior and it's likeyou, you seem oblivious to the
effect on the team here.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (04:05):
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 theother, and so the there, the
president of the company calledme in and said, I need help
because I have these twovaluable people.
They think they're really great.
They seem to really be at odds,and one person is thinking of
quitting.
(04:25):
Maybe both will quit, and I, andI 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 verydifferent context of what was
happening.
one person had been a longtimeemployee at the organization,
and, um, through a series oforganizational shifts, she wound
up being moved further andfurther away from where she was
(04:46):
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 aboutwhat is the least I can say to
still, still do my job, not tobetray confidences.
And then she gets, uh, this newemployee who has no idea about
(05:07):
the organization and waspromised that she would grow in
the organization and do allthese things.
so now the two of them arespeaking and they're speaking
from entirely two differentplaces.
And so when the, the new personwas complaining to me, she's
complaining to me about a secretof non-transparent manager,
which is kind of true, but notbecause of anything personal,
not because of anything she hasagainst the new person, just
(05:27):
because that's the way that shethinks.
That's for context.
Of course when this person, whenthe new person gets this
message, she feels, um, let'snot just say negatively, uh, to
toward the organization andtoward the manager.
And so once we are able tofigure out their different
context and their intentionsversus their impact, then they
(05:47):
really had one giant catharticconversation.
And from then on, they're finebecause they're actually two
really good human beings and twogood employees.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (05:58):
And I find that a lot of times
people will assume things andthey have like this gap and void
of information.
So they'll fill it and they'llcreate a narrative in their
head.
And sometimes that's like kindof.
Close to the truth.
Truth, and sometimes it is likeoceans away.
Um, and so I'm wondering is, is,you know, where does the step
of, let's identify the intentionhere, which you could still have
(06:21):
issue with, right?
Like you could like, okay, Ifully understand your intention.
I hear you, I understand you.
I'm gonna repeat back what yousaid to make sure that.
You know that I understand and Istill disagree with that, but
where is the step of, let's justget our cards on the table here.
What, like what did you intendto do when you were doing this,
this, and this?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (06:40):
Here's what happens in our brain.
We have a structure in our braincalled the amygdala.
So part of our limbic system,it's our animal brain, and it
doesn't have language.
It's just wired for threatdetection, it's very, it's very
necessary to evolution.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (06:55):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (06:55):
is less necessary to today's
corporate environment, but itactivates anyway.
And it, because it's a, it's amore primal system.
It activates before the languagegets activated.
we sense something and ourlimbic system senses potential
danger.
I.
Then our brain, our prefrontalcortex, tries to make sense of
(07:16):
that messaging.
What could it be?
is when we start filling in theblanks with, it could be that
this person is bad and they'reafter me.
It could be that I'm about toget fired, et cetera, et cetera.
Then we start believing our ownstory because we heard it in our
head.
And so if that's what my brainis telling me, it must be true,
and therefore, then we act onthat experience.
Of course, other people havetheir very different experience,
(07:38):
and that is often where conflicthappens.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (07:41):
Yeah.
So how do you go aboutuncovering the intention just as
like a baseline, Hey, let's getlike level set everyone.
Let's actually talk about whatwe're talking about here.
How do you kind of have thatinitial conversation?
I.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (07:53):
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 thestory their beginning.
So I do that.
Um, and at a, at a sort of, at asimple level, I go and I ask
each person that question, andeveryone's beginning is often
different,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (08:13):
Oh.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (08:16):
So that's the big, that's the
first, first PA piece of that.
I also watch their bodylanguage.
To, to see, how are they actingas they're telling me the story,
what is really salient to them?
And then I ask the question ofwhat are they not saying?
And or how come they're usingthat particular word?
And I, I would ask that how comeyou're using the word betrayed?
(08:37):
Because I hear that this persondid this.
What makes it a betrayal?
For
emily-sander_1_03-05-20 (08:41):
Mm-hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (08:41):
and then they tell me, they tell me,
oh, they, they're happy to tellme what makes it a betrayal.
And often what makes it abetrayal is that this act is
similar to another act I havehad in my past when I classified
that as a betrayal, which may bea betrayal, it just may be a
false positive.
And so we wanna ask thatquestion.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (09:01):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (09:02):
how I typically uncover it.
I, by having these conversationsof asking, how do you know this
is true?
What makes you say that?
Or How come using thatparticular word?
And I, I don't challenge, uh, inthe 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 comesout.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (09:20):
Okay.
And so you have the conversationwith the two separate people.
And then my next question isaround when you get the two
people together, and just to setcontext for this, you're speak,
we're speaking with a lot ofchiefs of staff here who are
doing kind of a lot of these,um, brokering conversations or
building bridges or mediationconversations with C-suite
executives, with principals,with all these different, uh.
(09:42):
Players in the organization.
So, um, I'm imagining someonesaying like, yes, I have these
two folks who don't see eye toeye.
They're at odds with each other.
Okay.
So I have the first two separateconversations, and then how do I
actually bring them toresolution?
So what would be the next step?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (09:58):
So that last conversation is in
some ways the easiest becauseall the hard work is done
beforehand, and those separateconversations sometimes take
several passes.
So I would have one conversationwith one person, then another,
then we do it again and maybe doit again after that.
And the reason I do that is onefor horse trading.
So one person tells me, well,I'm willing to to concede this
(10:19):
point, but then I would needthese assurances.
So then I go back to theirperson and say, how do you
respond to that?
By the way, it's very importantwhen I, when I do that to ask
for permission.
So, so that the people know thatI am revealing information, that
they are okay with me revealing.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (10:33):
Sure.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (10:33):
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, youknow, 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 ofthing.
but so I have those, thoseconversations and by the time
we're done, I actually wanna setthe stage for a reconciliation
(10:55):
conversation.
And what I say is somethinglike, so Emily, I.
I am going to say this.
Hello.
We're gonna speak with Alex andEmily and what I would like you
to do then is maybe,'cause Alexneeds to hear you say that you
understand that he didn't meanany harm by this, so I would
appreciate it if you said that.
I think that would make theconversation easier so that you
would agree to do that.
(11:16):
And then you would say, well,maybe then, but Alex don't need
to hear an apology from Alex fortreating me the way he did in
that meeting.
And then I make sure that Alexknows that when Emily says this,
I'm gonna cue Alex and say,Alex.
And how do you respond to whatEmily's saying?
Alex, by that point knows thathe will say, give an apology.
And if he doesn't, I willredirect him.
Um, so.
Because it's important thenmaybe for you to hear that
(11:38):
piece.
And I know that, so I'm, I'mgonna make sure you hear it.
Um, and that's how theconversation goes.
And once we're past those firstfew scripted moments, usually
then people relax and theconversation really goes,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (11:51):
Okay, so there's a bit of framing that
goes into it where like, let'sjust 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 stepback and let the two people have
just, just whatever organicconversation unfolds, or are you
still kind of guide, guiding theconversation in a general
direction?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (12:12):
It depends on the goal and depends
on whether people are doing andwhether or not There are
sometimes unearthing new oldwounds that I hadn't heard of.
And then I would say, well,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (12:21):
Mm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (12:21):
that's something we wanna go into
doing.
Um, what I wanna be careful andthe, the word you use is
productive conversation.
I certainly agree with thesentiment of that.
What I wanna do in thatconversation is not have my own
agenda of what productive meansunless I'm a principal, but
rather ask the two people what.
Is your agenda for a successfulconversation.
Okay, Alex, you wanna hear Emilysay that she's gonna, you know,
(12:44):
do this or this and this.
Okay.
And then what are you willing todo in return?
Okay.
Emily, same thing here.
And usually then I would remindboth people, I hear you both
saying what you really want isfigure out a way to collaborate
on this project.
how is this conversation helpingus toward that goal?
Or do you have a different goal?
And usually that type offraming.
(13:04):
Prompts people to say, okay,that's right.
Okay.
We are going, heading down tothat goal.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (13:10):
And one thing that I've done in the
past as chief of staff is.
Is identify the overallobjective.
And normally that's the, that'sthe 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 RevenueOfficer, and then I'm chief of
staff.
And so we're all trying to, um,grow revenue for the company.
(13:31):
This is just a basic example,right?
So like, we all want that, andthat's very important to us for
various reasons, but we all wantthat.
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 lookgood in front of your team and
in front of the board.
CFOI want you to be able toreport on X, Y, and Z to your
team and your stakeholders, etcetera.
(13:53):
Is, is there, uh, a place forlike, Hey, like let's identify
the objective or goal we'retrying to get to and have some
commonality in that.
Is there, is there a place forthat or is it really, you know,
you tell me what you're tryingto get to and then.
Second person over here, youtell me what you're trying to
get to and we'll try to find,uh, a common path to something,
(14:14):
to something in a, in the samegeneral direction.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (14:17):
So yes.
Yes, and yes for sure.
There is a place for a commongoal 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, asour goal, do we align on this?
And usually the devil's in thedetails a little bit because as
long
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (14:35):
I.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (14:35):
all aligned on the revenue target
of, I dunno, 10% growth, let'ssay 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 havedifferent definitions around
that.
And that is where usually youhave differences of perspective.
And the question is, are thesemutually exclusive or are they
(14:56):
complimentary?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (14:58):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (14:59):
And if they're complimentary, let's
discover that that's a win-winsolution.
And if they're mutuallyexclusive, then let's do some
kind of a negotiation to seewhat is acceptable to the group.
And that is appropriate tension.
And I would say this is goodtension that we're having.
Let's smile and deal with it.
This is not a personal thing.
Uh, and usually when people kindof, they relax into it, they
realize like, oh, this is okay.
(15:20):
Like we actually get paid to, tohave this tension.
That's fine.
So that the other person isn'tbad, they're just doing a
different job.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (15:27):
So you kind of segued into, um,
productive conflict or whateverwords you want to use there.
But there is, there is, youknow, 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 thismediation role, not officially
like you, but this unofficialmediation role as chief of staff
(15:48):
was to get these two teammembers to be able to speak
constructively without me in theroom.
Like they need to be adults andlike be able to have these
conversations'cause they're keyplayers in our organization and
they just have to haveconversations.
That's just part of the natureof the business.
So part of my goal was how do Imake it so they can go off and
do this on their own and havethose, those.
(16:10):
Uh, conversations where there istension and they are butting
heads, but it's all within a,you know, professional,
collaborative wrapper, if youwill.
So how do you move, how do youmove these two, uh, individuals
in our example to that phase?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (16:22):
Yeah.
So when I hear you say they needto be adults in the room, what I
imagine, uh, it means that theymust have trust and
understanding of theirparticular roles as opposed to
trigger each other and get intoa dramatic disagreement.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (16:37):
Yes, that would be accurate.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03- (16:40):
Happens.
And so in order to do that, oneis they need the framing.
So they would need to hear fromsomeone in your seat to say, it
is perfectly okay for you guysto have conflict, um, as long as
it is within these, you know,this paradigm.
So to give people permission todisagree and then give them the
tools.
So when you hear so and so say,we need to manage risk, that's
(17:02):
appropriate.
So ask, them to explain that andthen make sure that you're able
to.
Hear the other and make sureyou're able to speak in the
other's language, pleaseunderstand it.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (17:13):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (17:13):
Um, but then the other piece is the
triggering piece that oftenhuman beings trigger each other,
and that is what every personhas 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 thetraining lies
emily-sander_1_03-05-202 (17:33):
That's easier said than done.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (17:36):
for everyone.
The
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (17:38):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (17:38):
of
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (17:38):
And I.
Yeah.
And I was, I was, I was, um, Iforget where I heard this.
Uh, I either read it or apodcast, and they were basically
talking about the amygdala,which is, as you said, the
reptilian part of the brain thatkicks in with like survival.
Like, Hey, something rustled inthe bushes.
Uh, my life could be underthreat.
I'm gonna, I.
I'm gonna get ready to fight orflight.
And then our neocortex in thosemoments, as I understand it,
(18:00):
gets shut down.
So it's like our, um, forwardthinking 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 happensand I'm like, yep, that's like,
I think that's the effect ofyour near cortex shutting down.
And so we wanna be able to firethat thing back up so you can
(18:23):
think with, with your entirebrain and bring your whole self
to it.
Um, like that's like aintrinsic, like very.
Baseline primitive thing thathappens though.
So how do you get people torecognize that and then cycle
out of that in the moment?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (18:43):
Yeah.
The brain does not come with anowner's manual.
Right?
It'd be really nice if it did,and that is actually part of
what I show people, uh, abouttheir structures.
I, so I often show them thebrain, I point to the amygdala.
To explain to them, this is anactual thing.
It's a physical thing you have,and it's actually part of our
mammalian system.
So the, the reptilian part isthe, uh, danger.
(19:04):
Like there's sunlight, there's,you know, there's a danger.
Let's just scurry away.
the amygdala is very sensitiveto social threats.
So anytime we have the risk ofbeing excommunicated not
included in a group, being lessthan that is when it goes off.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (19:21):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (19:21):
that is for mammals, really important
to be in clumps because asmammals we're relatively weak.
We don't survive.
We need to be in a group.
So that's the function of theamygdala, is to prevent us from
straying too far so that we havethe benefit of the, um, the
group as a, as a means to oursurvive.
So,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (19:38):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (19:38):
when that is threatened, that's when
it, we get really jolted and wecan't think straight.
So I say all that because Iexplain that to the, to my
clients so that they can havesome humor about this so that
once they understand it, theyhave a little bit of a balcony
perspective of it, and then theywould 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
(19:59):
really ready to fight.
then once they have the languageand once they're able to label
their emotions, they're able torelax that part of the brain,
and then the prefrontal cortexcomes back online faster.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (20:09):
Yeah.
It's so funny you mentioned thatbecause, um, when I was first
going to board meetings, I wouldhave this like intense, just
like I could hear my heartbeating in my chest and in my
ears, and I would get, mytemperature would rise and I
would feel like my shoulders golike this and tense up.
And, um, I was working with mycoach at the time and we went
through a whole series ofdiscussions, but the funny part
(20:29):
we came to, which was like mybrain was, was going back into
kind of caveman days saying, youknow, the, the.
Competing tribe is coming at youwith like spears and arrows and
they're flinging them at you,which is like a silly, silly
picture now'cause that's nothappening.
Um, but that just kind ofbrought some levity and humor to
it.
And the interesting thing thatwas happening for me is I knew
(20:53):
that my, like physical survivalwas not in danger, but a lot of
times people's identities.
Get put in the place of youractual physical, like bodily
harm.
So like if your identity andyour image is under threat, that
becomes like a survival trigger.
Uh, and so for me it was, Iwould kind of, uh, rub my
fingers together, have a tactilesensation and just say, I'm.
(21:15):
I'm safe, I'm safe in my head.
And that would kind of cycle meout when I was having those
first board meetings where it'slike, these are the leaders,
these are the ones who candecide to excommunicate me.
IE fire me from the tribe, fromthe company.
Um, so it was so interestingthat you gave that, you gave
that example.
Um,
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-0 (21:32):
Hundred
emily-sander_1_03-05-2 (21:33):
anything else?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (21:33):
very
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (21:34):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_ (21:34):
describing.
Thank you for sharing that.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (21:37):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Um, I'm wondering if we movefrom like, okay, I'm a chief of
staff.
I mediated between twocolleagues to, I'm a chief of
staff and my principal, let'ssay the CEO and I are having
some sort of conflict where, youknow, there's, there's natural
conflict and things that happenwithin the bounds of any
business relationship.
And then there's like, this iskind of getting off the rails
(21:58):
and I'm not quite sure I cantrust this person or talk to
this person openly.
How would you go about.
Mediating that if, if you areone of the parties involved?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (22:07):
Yeah.
So you wanna resolve your ownconflict and you're feeling some
distrust.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (22:12):
Yes.
And it's with your principal, sothis is with your boss.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (22:15):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So in this hypothetical, can yougive me a little bit of, of a
con of context of what wouldcause the mistrust to occur?
Like how, what would, whatwould, how would it go from a
regular business disagreement touh oh.
Like there's a problem.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (22:30):
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 thedecisions is kind of ostracizing
me from the important meetings.
I'm not aware of things goingon, I'm being kind of being
regulated to the sidelines andjust doing the minutiae pieces
and it's like, hey, I'm here tobe chief of staff.
(22:51):
Um, tell me like, what'shappening?
Why, why aren't we having deeperconversations?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (22:55):
Yeah.
Okay.
So this is, uh, if I werecoaching the chief of staff,
here's what I would say.
would say, I am hearing that youexpect to be invited to this
meeting on Monday at 10, but youdid not get that invitation, and
then you would say to that.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (23:15):
Yes.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (23:16):
And how do you know that that is
intentional ostracism as opposedto anything else?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (23:26):
This is a one data point and a trend
that I'm seeing where I used tobe invited to these things.
I used to be on email threads.
I used to be, uh, consulted andasked for my advice on things,
and now those appear to begoing, those are going away.
Those becoming fewer.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (23:42):
Got it.
So there was a period of timewhen you felt, uh, uh, closer in
interactions.
There were more asks of you byyour principal, and then at some
point you realized there werefewer.
And this is an example of the,of those fewer points.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (23:56):
Yes,
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (23:57):
Okay.
When did you first notice, andby the way, this, this is also,
you can do this to yourself.
This is just me
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (24:03):
sure.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (24:03):
this experience.
When did you first notice thatthis was an issue for you?
That it mattered?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080 (24:12):
I would say, let's just say these
things started happening, um,like two months ago.
And at first it was like, youknow, one offs here and there.
And then when it became a, whenI thought it became a trend,
that's when it became meaningfulto me.
'cause that's my role andthat's, you know, am I not doing
a good job?
Um, is, is there something wrongper se?
So like, let's just say about amonth ago.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (24:32):
Great.
Okay, so then I would say amonth ago or now is a, is a
great time to bring up theseobservations to your principal
and actually ask them forcontext.
Because a lot of the stuff, therest of this is meaning, meaning
making, which we could be truebut could also not be true.
What we know is true is therewas a period of time when you
were closer and you got morequestions, and then at some
(24:54):
point you noticed that wasdifferent.
And one example of that is thefact that there's a Monday
morning meeting that you didn'tget invited to.
I
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (25:02):
Yes.
And to add further context, Ihad these conversations with my
principal.
I'm, I'm, I'm parroting whatI've heard from many chief of
staff here, um, uh, with myprincipal and I, I asked this, I
ask about this and I.
Uh, I feel like I'm getting abrush off answer, like, yeah,
yeah, yeah.
Like, no, no, no.
It's just, it's not thateverything's fine.
I'm just, you know, you're gonnabe off on this thing here, so
it's kind of a brush off.
(25:23):
But I feel over and over againthat like, hmm, that's not quite
the full story.
And they seem like they'reavoiding having this
conversation.
I'm trying to engage with themand reciprocating.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (25:32):
What were the questions that you, you
asked how, how did you have thatdiscussion with the principal?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (25:37):
Uh, let's just say, um, I noticed
that I wasn't invited to themeeting at Monday at 10, um,
this one on Thursday, and then Igot taken off of these couple
email threads that I'm normallyon.
And I was wondering, you know,is there, uh, is there a reason
for that?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (25:53):
Got it.
Yeah, so notice how you didn'tbring in your context, which
was, I remember a time beforewhen this didn't happen, and
then now I noticed that it ishappening.
And I think that context isreally important because it
could be that by the way,something is wrong and, and, and
this person is just being eitherpassive aggressive or just
(26:13):
avoidant and trying to brush youoff.
Like it's that totally possible.
And I would probably say thatthere's some anxiety over
speaking with you about this.
And so there's some non-zerocomponent of that piece of their
avoidance, but I'm not surethat's a hundred percent.
Of the equation, because part ofthis is your, your experience,
(26:34):
how you've noticed somethingthat'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 thatyou 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 ashift.
And I am curious and what I, theway I would say is I'm curious
(26:55):
how much of that is.
Circumstantial, like somethingnothing to do with me versus how
much of that is something to dowith me and, and let the person
speak to that and something todo.
Notice how I'm not saying did Ido anything wrong?
Something to do with me is anopen question for them to then
then say,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (27:12):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (27:12):
half of it is circumstantial and half
of it is I think whatever.
Maybe there's something I
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (27:17):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (27:17):
not doing, or maybe your role's
changing or whatever else.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (27:20):
Yes.
No.
So like your tips are, providecontext.
I'm curious about X, Y, and Z.
Um, how much of this has to dowith me, which is like hitting
the nail on the head.
And then, so let's say ev likepeople,
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (27:32):
and how much
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (27:33):
go ahead.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (27:33):
That's the other piece.
And also say how
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (27:35):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (27:36):
let
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (27:36):
How much of it doesn't.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (27:37):
Sorry.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (27:38):
Yeah, yeah.
No, no, thank you.
And I mean, there's so manyways, like there's, I always
tell people, don't assumethere's a hundred different
reasons.
Maybe there's like a merger andacquisition, or maybe someone's
leaving and they're preppingyou, they're giving you
deniability for something, andthen they're gonna bring you
back in the fold in a biggerrole.
Like I've seen this happen timeand time again.
Let's just say for hypotheticalpurposes, that like this person,
(27:59):
like the chief of staff ispicking up on something.
And the principal, the CEO inthis case is.
Is just brushing them off.
Um, is there a point at whichit's like, this is unsolvable
'cause they're my boss, theycall 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, inone respect.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (28:20):
So I would say that if you, if you
ask the question in thisopen-ended way, how much of it
is having to do with me?
How much of it, nothing to dowith me.
a really good opportunity foryour principal to say this has
nothing to do with you, soyou're doing a great job.
are some things that arehappening.
Don't worry.
Stay put, and all will berevealed in due time or some
(28:43):
version thereof, in which
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (28:44):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (28:44):
got the message.
It's not you.
Or the conversation could bethings are changing.
You know?
I think maybe the role isshifting.
I, I think maybe your skillswould be used elsewhere or
whatever else is going on, inwhich case also are getting a
message of something.
So if the
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (29:00):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (29:01):
is, being shifty when you are being
open, I think that is anindication to me that there's a
red flag,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (29:09):
Mm.
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (29:10):
but you have
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (29:11):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (29:11):
first.
And most people will be openwith you.
And that's also an opportunityto say, you can say, is there
something that I need to bedoing differently?
Upskilling, shifting the way I'mapproaching this.
Like any person would say, thankyou very much for asking.
Yes, I would love for, for youto think bigger now as opposed
to just tactical or somethingelse like that.
And that's an, that's aconversation for changing the
what you do in your value add.
(29:33):
And if the person is completely,unwilling to speak about it, my
guess honestly would be thatthey're looking to get out.
And so they don't have time intheir brain space for you, but
not because of you, but becauseof them.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (29:47):
Yeah, that's an interesting point.
Yeah, I've seen that scenariotoo, and I think what you said,
highlight something else reallyimportant is.
A lot of times chiefs of staffhave to coach their principal
and sometimes it's very metawhere it's like, we need, I need
to coach you on how to speak tome.
And so being open, like yousaid, and transparent is like,
here, let me just demonstrate.
Like let me go first type ofthing.
(30:07):
And then sometimes I've foundthat I.
When chiefs of staff give themlike examples or like open the
door, like, is it this?
Or like, you know, I know, couldI be doing this differently in
this type of meeting?
Or is it this that just opensthe door where it's like, it's
not, you know, it's not quitethat, but this, this, this, and
this over here might besomething that we can look at
and that just opens the door.
So I love that you, that youmentioned that a few, just a few
(30:28):
things as we wind down here.
Um, how do you tell if it's.
If it's, uh, productive tensionor 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 likesomeone's, uh, like person or
like attributes, like we're nottalking about the work or the
project or how we showed up atthe client meeting.
(30:51):
It's, you know, you are amorally bad person.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (30:55):
Yeah, I think both people have to
agree on what is in, in, inbounds and what is out of bounds
and, and that is sometimesdictated by company policies and
and laws,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (31:08):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03 (31:08):
sometimes it's a negotiation between
people.
So for example, I.
one person, um, comes from aculture where slamming their
fist on the desk is just anormal course of doing business,
but another person finds thatextremely frightening.
I.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (31:24):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-0 (31:25):
there's no, uh uh, you know, the, the
fist is going down onto thetable, not at the person.
Right?
So that, but that's an exampleof, hey, out of bounds for me,
like I, I'm not comfortablespeaking to you.
Doesn't matter what the issuesare with you being physical like
that, and that, then it's apoint of consideration of if
that's how you want you to hearit, then I have to adjust.
(31:45):
So that, I would say havingconversations like that, I mean,
this is an extreme example, butit could be when, when the other
person is triggered is when theproblem is whoever is triggered.
The other person, I would say,owes them some consideration to,
to avoid triggering them as muchas possible.
I.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (32:02):
Okay.
Is there any other tells towhere like, this is like, okay,
as chief of staff, you're oftensitting in team meetings where
it's like.
Part of this is good, like letthis conversation happen.
It's like people are kind ofgetting animated about it, but
that's actually a good thingversus, okay, now it's gone out
of bounds.
I need to guide it back inbounds or call timeout.
Hey, stop.
Is there any other tells to lookfor with that?
(32:24):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (32:24):
if people are getting shut down and
you know, part of it's watchingthe room and when someone gets
quiet, when someone, one persongets overly aggressive,
assertive, and that causes theother person to back away,
that's a time to say it was thatintentional.
And what was going on there, andthen maybe have a debrief
afterwards and say, yeah, thisdid not go as planned in a
(32:46):
negative way.
And then I'm using verydiplomatic language, right?
So this, this was, this wentoff.
Right.
Um, and so we don't wanna have arepeat of that.
So first let's figure out, youknow, Alex, you raised your
voice, Emily, and it cost Emilyto not speak something.
Alex, you owe her aconversation.
And that's something that shouldbe, that, that would be in that
chief of staff role to say.
(33:06):
So then
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (33:07):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-0 (33:07):
listen, didn't mean it.
That was just, I got toopassionate about so and so.
And so then we have that, and,and by the time we have the next
meeting, Emily and Alex areactually closer as coworkers
because of that.
emily-sander_1_03-05-20 (33:18):
Mm-hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1 (33:18):
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 therole.
And then the other part is toovertly say it's okay for us to
disagree and I'm gonna be thereferee in my role here.
So your job is to be passionateand 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 (33:40):
Yeah, well back to your like American
football example.
You know, when they throw theflags where there's a penalty,
it's kinda like, okay, like youguys go at it, like you guys go
at it hard and then I'll justthrow a flag if like, look, that
argument has no basis in kind ofwhat we're talking about here.
Um, before I forget, onequestion is.
High level guidelines on whatyou say in a group setting
versus what you say afterwardone-on-one.
(34:02):
So it might be like at the grouplevel, it's like, Hey, like just
time out.
We're gonna go in thisdirection.
And then afterward, like in thehallway, or you know, the next
day, you have that one-on-oneconversation with the different
participants.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (34:14):
I would say avoid shaming people
in a group setting.
So I would not say, uh, at thispoint to Alex.
Alex, you are out of line.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (34:23):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (34:24):
I would not say that.
I would say on the other handsomething like, you know, I'm
hearing this conversation and Ithink we, we reached a heat
level of eight and I think wewanna stop at a seven and a
half, so let's pause this andlet's continue that.
And that gives people themessage like, okay, like that's
a nice way of saying enough cooloff.
And
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (34:43):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (34:43):
you know, I've noticed when that
happened, you did this.
And that is something we wannaavoid in the future.
Something like that, that's aprivate conversation.
So then people can save face andclear things up without being
publicly shamed.
I.
emily-sander_1_03-05-202 (34:57):
Right.
What would you say in terms ofavoiding conflicts we've talked
about like, hey, there's,there's this good kind of
conflict which you wanna engagein.
Um, are there times where it'slike, you know what?
I feel like I wanna give thisperson a piece of my mind, but
right now is not the time, rightnow is not the time to have
that, that conversation
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (35:17):
I, I'm not actually a big fan of
avoiding, but I'm a fan ofpostponing, is what I'm hearing
you say.
So.
emily-sander_1_03-05- (35:23):
tomorrow.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03 (35:23):
Tomorrow.
Tomorrow, right?
Yeah.
So you wanna, you want toexpress, and I would also say if
you wanna give someone a pieceof your mind, I would not give
'em a piece of your mind.
I would say, what is it youwant?
Deal with your drama internallyand then come out, say something
when you actually have somethingcurious to ask about what
happened or something that youwant to explain that happened to
(35:44):
you.
And, and so I have a kinda afour step model of that.
Care, clarity, curiosity, andchoice.
So care means you have toremember there's a human being
there, even though you disagree.
Uh, clarity is doing thatinternal work of saying, what am
I solving for?
What is my trigger?
What do I really want?
And that happens before theconversation.
(36:05):
Curiosity.
It happens at the conversation.
So instead of giving a piece ofyour mind, you go in saying,
here's what happened on my side.
What happened on your side?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (36:13):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (36:13):
Then choice is about, I want to offer
the other person a chance tofigure out how to help me rather
than tell'em what to do.
don't wanna control, just wannagive'em what the end point is.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (36:25):
Yes, so.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (36:25):
a 10% risk adjusted growth that?
emily-sander_1_03-05-20 (36:29):
Gotcha.
And the last thing I'll leave uswith is hitting on something you
just you mentioned earlier,which is that, um, conflict and
these even heated, heatedarguments can bring people
closer together.
And that's a huge piece.
'cause after you've kind of goneto battle, there is that sense
of like, now we're somehowcloser, which is like
interesting dynamic.
So can you touch on that to windus down here?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (36:51):
Yeah, as long as, as people understand
again what they are doing, it'sokay to battle as long as they,
it's in the context of our, ofour.
Ongoing positive relationship.
And
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (37:00):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (37:01):
to make amends when things are, uh,
when things are heated.
And I'll give you a perfectexample.
I was speaking to one of myclosest lifetime friends, I've
known each other for 45 years,and, um, and our discussion got
heated and I sort of said, youkidding, this is not so, et
cetera.
And this guy said, look, I'msorry.
I did not mean to upset you.
And I really wasn't mad at him.
(37:21):
I was just sort of passionateabout the discussion, but the
fact that he actually said that,that he what, he showed his care
toward me.
And so that actually brought uscloser, 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 endingto a discussion that was, if
you'd hear it in the middle, itwould be very loud and
(37:41):
boisterous.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (37:43):
Yeah.
And I remember one time I waslike, we were in this like group
conversation and this, we weretalking about like 24,000
something, I think it wasdollars or conference attendees
or something.
I think it was a dollars for aconference.
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.
(38:04):
I was like, let's call him Rob.
Like I was like, Rob, did youjust say a million?
He was like, that was just for adramatic effect and everyone
just started laughing.
It was like, okay, we're noteven talking in the realm, but
laughing is, is a big one.
It broke the ice.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (38:18):
Yeah.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (38:18):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Got it.
Perfect.
Alex, you've shared so much andI'm sure it's just tip of the
iceberg for everything that youdo 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 toconnect with you?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (38:35):
Yeah.
So go to conflict yes.com.
And, uh, that is my websitethere.
I have resources there, and youcan also contact me and I'll,
I'll be happy to, to chat withyou about ways that we can work
together.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (38:47):
And do you work with, um,
individuals, with teams?
Do you do workshops?
What types of things do youoffer?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (38:52):
I typically work with teams and
organizations, um, but if anindividual has a problem at work
in the context of that, I'mhappy to chat about that as
well.
And I offer trainings, groupcoaching, and individual
one-on-one coaching, as well as,of course, conflict resolution
for those emergencies.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (39:09):
So conflict yes.
Dot com.
We'll have that in the shownotes.
Alex, thank you again.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (39:13):
My pleasure.
Thank you.
My guest today is Alex Yaro.
Alex, how you doing?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (00:28):
Very well, good to be here.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (00:31):
Good to have you on.
So let's just jump in.
Can you give folks a quickbackground of, of yourself and
how you got into your longcareer of mediation and now into
conflict resolution?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (00:43):
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 gotthe sense from my family system
that there was gonna be conflictin the system.
You know, there were people whowere with you or the people who
were against you and so on.
(01:04):
Then when I came to the UnitedStates, I had a whole different
system of conflicts to navigate.
I didn't know America, I didn'tknow how America worked.
And my parents told me that Ireally kept quiet and didn't,
didn't say anything for likethree months until I was, I
guess I must have been absorbingit all.
And then, um, and theneventually, uh, and when I got
to middle school, I startedgetting into conflicts of my
own.
So like one example of that is,uh.
(01:27):
know anything about Americanfootball.
So when I was picked to be, um,on, on the team, my, my job was
to count one Mississippi, twoMississippi, and I knew that
Mississippi was the river in themiddle of the United States.
I had no idea why we wereyelling at, went okay most of
the time, except at some point Igot past seven Mississippi.
And then got into eightMississippi and all the kids
(01:49):
started No, said, no, no, no.
Rush him.
Rush him.
Meaning that I was supposed torush the quarterback, but I
didn't know that.
So I thought they meant Russian.
Russian.
They made, they were making funof me.
And so I didn't reallyunderstand that.
And so the kids got mad that I,I wasn't doing what I was
supposed to, and they wanted tofight me, and I didn't really
know how to deal with that.
So I knew the word for tomorrow.
(02:10):
So I said fight.
Okay, tomorrow.
And they said tomorrow.
And then, so tomorrow becametomorrow.
Tomorrow.
And then I realized, you know, Ican use the power of language to
resolve conflicts.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (02:24):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (02:24):
is what started me along this
journey.
Then I eventually became amediator and I really took to
that.
And now I do a lot of workaround executive coaching and
how to deal with difficultpersonalities and how to lead
people effectively.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (02:38):
Yes.
And you, I mean, you kind ofbrushed over it, but mediation,
you were like professor and youdid kind of this, this
illustrious kind of middle partof your career with that.
Yes.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (02:46):
So, uh, so in grad school, uh, I saw
a, a flyer that's a freemediation training.
And at that point I didn't knowwhat mediation was.
I was interested in negotiationat the time and talking, but not
necessarily.
I didn't know what the processwas and, and I got the free
training and I really took toit.
And so there are some people, Ithink we maybe talked about this
before, some people are, uh,have a talent for singing or
(03:08):
playing the piano, what haveyou.
And I don't have any of those.
But, uh, but for mediation, Idiscovered that was my talent,
that I'm able to hear one personunderstand their perspective and
then hear another personunderstand their perspective and
sort of have a bird's eye viewof what's happening.
And then I'm able to feed itback to the people so they can
understand I.
How, uh, they're, they play arole in this and then hopefully
(03:32):
coach them to resolution.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (03:34):
Yeah, and I mean, one of the things
that I've, I've heard you speakabout is.
Helping people understand howtheir actions impact others,
which a lot of times people arelike oblivious.
They just like, they areunaware.
Now sometimes they kind of havean inkling and they do it
anyway.
But I'm wondering kind of howthat feeds into, you know, in
the business world when leadersor colleagues are, are doing a
(03:59):
certain behavior and it's likeyou, you seem oblivious to the
effect on the team here.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (04:05):
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 theother, and so the there, the
president of the company calledme in and said, I need help
because I have these twovaluable people.
They think they're really great.
They seem to really be at odds,and one person is thinking of
quitting.
(04:25):
Maybe both will quit, and I, andI 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 verydifferent context of what was
happening.
one person had been a longtimeemployee at the organization,
and, um, through a series oforganizational shifts, she wound
up being moved further andfurther away from where she was
(04:46):
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 aboutwhat is the least I can say to
still, still do my job, not tobetray confidences.
And then she gets, uh, this newemployee who has no idea about
(05:07):
the organization and waspromised that she would grow in
the organization and do allthese things.
so now the two of them arespeaking and they're speaking
from entirely two differentplaces.
And so when the, the new personwas complaining to me, she's
complaining to me about a secretof non-transparent manager,
which is kind of true, but notbecause of anything personal,
not because of anything she hasagainst the new person, just
(05:27):
because that's the way that shethinks.
That's for context.
Of course when this person, whenthe new person gets this
message, she feels, um, let'snot just say negatively, uh, to
toward the organization andtoward the manager.
And so once we are able tofigure out their different
context and their intentionsversus their impact, then they
(05:47):
really had one giant catharticconversation.
And from then on, they're finebecause they're actually two
really good human beings and twogood employees.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (05:58):
And I find that a lot of times
people will assume things andthey have like this gap and void
of information.
So they'll fill it and they'llcreate a narrative in their
head.
And sometimes that's like kindof.
Close to the truth.
Truth, and sometimes it is likeoceans away.
Um, and so I'm wondering is, is,you know, where does the step
of, let's identify the intentionhere, which you could still have
(06:21):
issue with, right?
Like you could like, okay, Ifully understand your intention.
I hear you, I understand you.
I'm gonna repeat back what yousaid to make sure that.
You know that I understand and Istill disagree with that, but
where is the step of, let's justget our cards on the table here.
What, like what did you intendto do when you were doing this,
this, and this?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (06:40):
Here's what happens in our brain.
We have a structure in our braincalled the amygdala.
So part of our limbic system,it's our animal brain, and it
doesn't have language.
It's just wired for threatdetection, it's very, it's very
necessary to evolution.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (06:55):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (06:55):
is less necessary to today's
corporate environment, but itactivates anyway.
And it, because it's a, it's amore primal system.
It activates before the languagegets activated.
we sense something and ourlimbic system senses potential
danger.
I.
Then our brain, our prefrontalcortex, tries to make sense of
(07:16):
that messaging.
What could it be?
is when we start filling in theblanks with, it could be that
this person is bad and they'reafter me.
It could be that I'm about toget fired, et cetera, et cetera.
Then we start believing our ownstory because we heard it in our
head.
And so if that's what my brainis telling me, it must be true,
and therefore, then we act onthat experience.
Of course, other people havetheir very different experience,
(07:38):
and that is often where conflicthappens.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (07:41):
Yeah.
So how do you go aboutuncovering the intention just as
like a baseline, Hey, let's getlike level set everyone.
Let's actually talk about whatwe're talking about here.
How do you kind of have thatinitial conversation?
I.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (07:53):
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 thestory their beginning.
So I do that.
Um, and at a, at a sort of, at asimple level, I go and I ask
each person that question, andeveryone's beginning is often
different,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (08:13):
Oh.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (08:16):
So that's the big, that's the
first, first PA piece of that.
I also watch their bodylanguage.
To, to see, how are they actingas they're telling me the story,
what is really salient to them?
And then I ask the question ofwhat are they not saying?
And or how come they're usingthat particular word?
And I, I would ask that how comeyou're using the word betrayed?
(08:37):
Because I hear that this persondid this.
What makes it a betrayal?
For
emily-sander_1_03-05-20 (08:41):
Mm-hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (08:41):
and then they tell me, they tell me,
oh, they, they're happy to tellme what makes it a betrayal.
And often what makes it abetrayal is that this act is
similar to another act I havehad in my past when I classified
that as a betrayal, which may bea betrayal, it just may be a
false positive.
And so we wanna ask thatquestion.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (09:01):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (09:02):
how I typically uncover it.
I, by having these conversationsof asking, how do you know this
is true?
What makes you say that?
Or How come using thatparticular word?
And I, I don't challenge, uh, inthe 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 comesout.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (09:20):
Okay.
And so you have the conversationwith the two separate people.
And then my next question isaround when you get the two
people together, and just to setcontext for this, you're speak,
we're speaking with a lot ofchiefs of staff here who are
doing kind of a lot of these,um, brokering conversations or
building bridges or mediationconversations with C-suite
executives, with principals,with all these different, uh.
(09:42):
Players in the organization.
So, um, I'm imagining someonesaying like, yes, I have these
two folks who don't see eye toeye.
They're at odds with each other.
Okay.
So I have the first two separateconversations, and then how do I
actually bring them toresolution?
So what would be the next step?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (09:58):
So that last conversation is in
some ways the easiest becauseall the hard work is done
beforehand, and those separateconversations sometimes take
several passes.
So I would have one conversationwith one person, then another,
then we do it again and maybe doit again after that.
And the reason I do that is onefor horse trading.
So one person tells me, well,I'm willing to to concede this
(10:19):
point, but then I would needthese assurances.
So then I go back to theirperson and say, how do you
respond to that?
By the way, it's very importantwhen I, when I do that to ask
for permission.
So, so that the people know thatI am revealing information, that
they are okay with me revealing.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (10:33):
Sure.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (10:33):
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, youknow, 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 ofthing.
but so I have those, thoseconversations and by the time
we're done, I actually wanna setthe stage for a reconciliation
(10:55):
conversation.
And what I say is somethinglike, so Emily, I.
I am going to say this.
Hello.
We're gonna speak with Alex andEmily and what I would like you
to do then is maybe,'cause Alexneeds to hear you say that you
understand that he didn't meanany harm by this, so I would
appreciate it if you said that.
I think that would make theconversation easier so that you
would agree to do that.
(11:16):
And then you would say, well,maybe then, but Alex don't need
to hear an apology from Alex fortreating me the way he did in
that meeting.
And then I make sure that Alexknows that when Emily says this,
I'm gonna cue Alex and say,Alex.
And how do you respond to whatEmily's saying?
Alex, by that point knows thathe will say, give an apology.
And if he doesn't, I willredirect him.
Um, so.
Because it's important thenmaybe for you to hear that
(11:38):
piece.
And I know that, so I'm, I'mgonna make sure you hear it.
Um, and that's how theconversation goes.
And once we're past those firstfew scripted moments, usually
then people relax and theconversation really goes,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (11:51):
Okay, so there's a bit of framing that
goes into it where like, let'sjust 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 stepback and let the two people have
just, just whatever organicconversation unfolds, or are you
still kind of guide, guiding theconversation in a general
direction?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (12:12):
It depends on the goal and depends
on whether people are doing andwhether or not There are
sometimes unearthing new oldwounds that I hadn't heard of.
And then I would say, well,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (12:21):
Mm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (12:21):
that's something we wanna go into
doing.
Um, what I wanna be careful andthe, the word you use is
productive conversation.
I certainly agree with thesentiment of that.
What I wanna do in thatconversation is not have my own
agenda of what productive meansunless I'm a principal, but
rather ask the two people what.
Is your agenda for a successfulconversation.
Okay, Alex, you wanna hear Emilysay that she's gonna, you know,
(12:44):
do this or this and this.
Okay.
And then what are you willing todo in return?
Okay.
Emily, same thing here.
And usually then I would remindboth people, I hear you both
saying what you really want isfigure out a way to collaborate
on this project.
how is this conversation helpingus toward that goal?
Or do you have a different goal?
And usually that type offraming.
(13:04):
Prompts people to say, okay,that's right.
Okay.
We are going, heading down tothat goal.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (13:10):
And one thing that I've done in the
past as chief of staff is.
Is identify the overallobjective.
And normally that's the, that'sthe 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 RevenueOfficer, and then I'm chief of
staff.
And so we're all trying to, um,grow revenue for the company.
(13:31):
This is just a basic example,right?
So like, we all want that, andthat's very important to us for
various reasons, but we all wantthat.
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 lookgood in front of your team and
in front of the board.
CFOI want you to be able toreport on X, Y, and Z to your
team and your stakeholders, etcetera.
(13:53):
Is, is there, uh, a place forlike, Hey, like let's identify
the objective or goal we'retrying to get to and have some
commonality in that.
Is there, is there a place forthat or is it really, you know,
you tell me what you're tryingto get to and then.
Second person over here, youtell me what you're trying to
get to and we'll try to find,uh, a common path to something,
(14:14):
to something in a, in the samegeneral direction.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (14:17):
So yes.
Yes, and yes for sure.
There is a place for a commongoal 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, asour goal, do we align on this?
And usually the devil's in thedetails a little bit because as
long
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (14:35):
I.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (14:35):
all aligned on the revenue target
of, I dunno, 10% growth, let'ssay 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 havedifferent definitions around
that.
And that is where usually youhave differences of perspective.
And the question is, are thesemutually exclusive or are they
(14:56):
complimentary?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (14:58):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (14:59):
And if they're complimentary, let's
discover that that's a win-winsolution.
And if they're mutuallyexclusive, then let's do some
kind of a negotiation to seewhat is acceptable to the group.
And that is appropriate tension.
And I would say this is goodtension that we're having.
Let's smile and deal with it.
This is not a personal thing.
Uh, and usually when people kindof, they relax into it, they
realize like, oh, this is okay.
(15:20):
Like we actually get paid to, tohave this tension.
That's fine.
So that the other person isn'tbad, they're just doing a
different job.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (15:27):
So you kind of segued into, um,
productive conflict or whateverwords you want to use there.
But there is, there is, youknow, 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 thismediation role, not officially
like you, but this unofficialmediation role as chief of staff
(15:48):
was to get these two teammembers to be able to speak
constructively without me in theroom.
Like they need to be adults andlike be able to have these
conversations'cause they're keyplayers in our organization and
they just have to haveconversations.
That's just part of the natureof the business.
So part of my goal was how do Imake it so they can go off and
do this on their own and havethose, those.
(16:10):
Uh, conversations where there istension and they are butting
heads, but it's all within a,you know, professional,
collaborative wrapper, if youwill.
So how do you move, how do youmove these two, uh, individuals
in our example to that phase?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (16:22):
Yeah.
So when I hear you say they needto be adults in the room, what I
imagine, uh, it means that theymust have trust and
understanding of theirparticular roles as opposed to
trigger each other and get intoa dramatic disagreement.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (16:37):
Yes, that would be accurate.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03- (16:40):
Happens.
And so in order to do that, oneis they need the framing.
So they would need to hear fromsomeone in your seat to say, it
is perfectly okay for you guysto have conflict, um, as long as
it is within these, you know,this paradigm.
So to give people permission todisagree and then give them the
tools.
So when you hear so and so say,we need to manage risk, that's
(17:02):
appropriate.
So ask, them to explain that andthen make sure that you're able
to.
Hear the other and make sureyou're able to speak in the
other's language, pleaseunderstand it.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (17:13):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (17:13):
Um, but then the other piece is the
triggering piece that oftenhuman beings trigger each other,
and that is what every personhas 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 thetraining lies
emily-sander_1_03-05-202 (17:33):
That's easier said than done.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (17:36):
for everyone.
The
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (17:38):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (17:38):
of
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (17:38):
And I.
Yeah.
And I was, I was, I was, um, Iforget where I heard this.
Uh, I either read it or apodcast, and they were basically
talking about the amygdala,which is, as you said, the
reptilian part of the brain thatkicks in with like survival.
Like, Hey, something rustled inthe bushes.
Uh, my life could be underthreat.
I'm gonna, I.
I'm gonna get ready to fight orflight.
And then our neocortex in thosemoments, as I understand it,
(18:00):
gets shut down.
So it's like our, um, forwardthinking 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 happensand I'm like, yep, that's like,
I think that's the effect ofyour near cortex shutting down.
And so we wanna be able to firethat thing back up so you can
(18:23):
think with, with your entirebrain and bring your whole self
to it.
Um, like that's like aintrinsic, like very.
Baseline primitive thing thathappens though.
So how do you get people torecognize that and then cycle
out of that in the moment?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (18:43):
Yeah.
The brain does not come with anowner's manual.
Right?
It'd be really nice if it did,and that is actually part of
what I show people, uh, abouttheir structures.
I, so I often show them thebrain, I point to the amygdala.
To explain to them, this is anactual thing.
It's a physical thing you have,and it's actually part of our
mammalian system.
So the, the reptilian part isthe, uh, danger.
(19:04):
Like there's sunlight, there's,you know, there's a danger.
Let's just scurry away.
the amygdala is very sensitiveto social threats.
So anytime we have the risk ofbeing excommunicated not
included in a group, being lessthan that is when it goes off.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (19:21):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (19:21):
that is for mammals, really important
to be in clumps because asmammals we're relatively weak.
We don't survive.
We need to be in a group.
So that's the function of theamygdala, is to prevent us from
straying too far so that we havethe benefit of the, um, the
group as a, as a means to oursurvive.
So,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (19:38):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (19:38):
when that is threatened, that's when
it, we get really jolted and wecan't think straight.
So I say all that because Iexplain that to the, to my
clients so that they can havesome humor about this so that
once they understand it, theyhave a little bit of a balcony
perspective of it, and then theywould 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
(19:59):
really ready to fight.
then once they have the languageand once they're able to label
their emotions, they're able torelax that part of the brain,
and then the prefrontal cortexcomes back online faster.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (20:09):
Yeah.
It's so funny you mentioned thatbecause, um, when I was first
going to board meetings, I wouldhave this like intense, just
like I could hear my heartbeating in my chest and in my
ears, and I would get, mytemperature would rise and I
would feel like my shoulders golike this and tense up.
And, um, I was working with mycoach at the time and we went
through a whole series ofdiscussions, but the funny part
(20:29):
we came to, which was like mybrain was, was going back into
kind of caveman days saying, youknow, the, the.
Competing tribe is coming at youwith like spears and arrows and
they're flinging them at you,which is like a silly, silly
picture now'cause that's nothappening.
Um, but that just kind ofbrought some levity and humor to
it.
And the interesting thing thatwas happening for me is I knew
(20:53):
that my, like physical survivalwas not in danger, but a lot of
times people's identities.
Get put in the place of youractual physical, like bodily
harm.
So like if your identity andyour image is under threat, that
becomes like a survival trigger.
Uh, and so for me it was, Iwould kind of, uh, rub my
fingers together, have a tactilesensation and just say, I'm.
(21:15):
I'm safe, I'm safe in my head.
And that would kind of cycle meout when I was having those
first board meetings where it'slike, these are the leaders,
these are the ones who candecide to excommunicate me.
IE fire me from the tribe, fromthe company.
Um, so it was so interestingthat you gave that, you gave
that example.
Um,
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-0 (21:32):
Hundred
emily-sander_1_03-05-2 (21:33):
anything else?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (21:33):
very
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (21:34):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_ (21:34):
describing.
Thank you for sharing that.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (21:37):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Um, I'm wondering if we movefrom like, okay, I'm a chief of
staff.
I mediated between twocolleagues to, I'm a chief of
staff and my principal, let'ssay the CEO and I are having
some sort of conflict where, youknow, there's, there's natural
conflict and things that happenwithin the bounds of any
business relationship.
And then there's like, this iskind of getting off the rails
(21:58):
and I'm not quite sure I cantrust this person or talk to
this person openly.
How would you go about.
Mediating that if, if you areone of the parties involved?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (22:07):
Yeah.
So you wanna resolve your ownconflict and you're feeling some
distrust.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (22:12):
Yes.
And it's with your principal, sothis is with your boss.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (22:15):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So in this hypothetical, can yougive me a little bit of, of a
con of context of what wouldcause the mistrust to occur?
Like how, what would, whatwould, how would it go from a
regular business disagreement touh oh.
Like there's a problem.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (22:30):
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 thedecisions is kind of ostracizing
me from the important meetings.
I'm not aware of things goingon, I'm being kind of being
regulated to the sidelines andjust doing the minutiae pieces
and it's like, hey, I'm here tobe chief of staff.
(22:51):
Um, tell me like, what'shappening?
Why, why aren't we having deeperconversations?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (22:55):
Yeah.
Okay.
So this is, uh, if I werecoaching the chief of staff,
here's what I would say.
would say, I am hearing that youexpect to be invited to this
meeting on Monday at 10, but youdid not get that invitation, and
then you would say to that.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (23:15):
Yes.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (23:16):
And how do you know that that is
intentional ostracism as opposedto anything else?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (23:26):
This is a one data point and a trend
that I'm seeing where I used tobe invited to these things.
I used to be on email threads.
I used to be, uh, consulted andasked for my advice on things,
and now those appear to begoing, those are going away.
Those becoming fewer.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (23:42):
Got it.
So there was a period of timewhen you felt, uh, uh, closer in
interactions.
There were more asks of you byyour principal, and then at some
point you realized there werefewer.
And this is an example of the,of those fewer points.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (23:56):
Yes,
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (23:57):
Okay.
When did you first notice, andby the way, this, this is also,
you can do this to yourself.
This is just me
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (24:03):
sure.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (24:03):
this experience.
When did you first notice thatthis was an issue for you?
That it mattered?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_080 (24:12):
I would say, let's just say these
things started happening, um,like two months ago.
And at first it was like, youknow, one offs here and there.
And then when it became a, whenI thought it became a trend,
that's when it became meaningfulto me.
'cause that's my role andthat's, you know, am I not doing
a good job?
Um, is, is there something wrongper se?
So like, let's just say about amonth ago.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (24:32):
Great.
Okay, so then I would say amonth ago or now is a, is a
great time to bring up theseobservations to your principal
and actually ask them forcontext.
Because a lot of the stuff, therest of this is meaning, meaning
making, which we could be truebut could also not be true.
What we know is true is therewas a period of time when you
were closer and you got morequestions, and then at some
(24:54):
point you noticed that wasdifferent.
And one example of that is thefact that there's a Monday
morning meeting that you didn'tget invited to.
I
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (25:02):
Yes.
And to add further context, Ihad these conversations with my
principal.
I'm, I'm, I'm parroting whatI've heard from many chief of
staff here, um, uh, with myprincipal and I, I asked this, I
ask about this and I.
Uh, I feel like I'm getting abrush off answer, like, yeah,
yeah, yeah.
Like, no, no, no.
It's just, it's not thateverything's fine.
I'm just, you know, you're gonnabe off on this thing here, so
it's kind of a brush off.
(25:23):
But I feel over and over againthat like, hmm, that's not quite
the full story.
And they seem like they'reavoiding having this
conversation.
I'm trying to engage with themand reciprocating.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (25:32):
What were the questions that you, you
asked how, how did you have thatdiscussion with the principal?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (25:37):
Uh, let's just say, um, I noticed
that I wasn't invited to themeeting at Monday at 10, um,
this one on Thursday, and then Igot taken off of these couple
email threads that I'm normallyon.
And I was wondering, you know,is there, uh, is there a reason
for that?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (25:53):
Got it.
Yeah, so notice how you didn'tbring in your context, which
was, I remember a time beforewhen this didn't happen, and
then now I noticed that it ishappening.
And I think that context isreally important because it
could be that by the way,something is wrong and, and, and
this person is just being eitherpassive aggressive or just
(26:13):
avoidant and trying to brush youoff.
Like it's that totally possible.
And I would probably say thatthere's some anxiety over
speaking with you about this.
And so there's some non-zerocomponent of that piece of their
avoidance, but I'm not surethat's a hundred percent.
Of the equation, because part ofthis is your, your experience,
(26:34):
how you've noticed somethingthat'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 thatyou 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 ashift.
And I am curious and what I, theway I would say is I'm curious
(26:55):
how much of that is.
Circumstantial, like somethingnothing to do with me versus how
much of that is something to dowith me and, and let the person
speak to that and something todo.
Notice how I'm not saying did Ido anything wrong?
Something to do with me is anopen question for them to then
then say,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (27:12):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (27:12):
half of it is circumstantial and half
of it is I think whatever.
Maybe there's something I
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (27:17):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (27:17):
not doing, or maybe your role's
changing or whatever else.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (27:20):
Yes.
No.
So like your tips are, providecontext.
I'm curious about X, Y, and Z.
Um, how much of this has to dowith me, which is like hitting
the nail on the head.
And then, so let's say ev likepeople,
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (27:32):
and how much
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (27:33):
go ahead.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (27:33):
That's the other piece.
And also say how
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (27:35):
Hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (27:36):
let
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (27:36):
How much of it doesn't.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (27:37):
Sorry.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (27:38):
Yeah, yeah.
No, no, thank you.
And I mean, there's so manyways, like there's, I always
tell people, don't assumethere's a hundred different
reasons.
Maybe there's like a merger andacquisition, or maybe someone's
leaving and they're preppingyou, they're giving you
deniability for something, andthen they're gonna bring you
back in the fold in a biggerrole.
Like I've seen this happen timeand time again.
Let's just say for hypotheticalpurposes, that like this person,
(27:59):
like the chief of staff ispicking up on something.
And the principal, the CEO inthis case is.
Is just brushing them off.
Um, is there a point at whichit's like, this is unsolvable
'cause they're my boss, theycall 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, inone respect.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (28:20):
So I would say that if you, if you
ask the question in thisopen-ended way, how much of it
is having to do with me?
How much of it, nothing to dowith me.
a really good opportunity foryour principal to say this has
nothing to do with you, soyou're doing a great job.
are some things that arehappening.
Don't worry.
Stay put, and all will berevealed in due time or some
(28:43):
version thereof, in which
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (28:44):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (28:44):
got the message.
It's not you.
Or the conversation could bethings are changing.
You know?
I think maybe the role isshifting.
I, I think maybe your skillswould be used elsewhere or
whatever else is going on, inwhich case also are getting a
message of something.
So if the
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (29:00):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (29:01):
is, being shifty when you are being
open, I think that is anindication to me that there's a
red flag,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (29:09):
Mm.
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (29:10):
but you have
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (29:11):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05 (29:11):
first.
And most people will be openwith you.
And that's also an opportunityto say, you can say, is there
something that I need to bedoing differently?
Upskilling, shifting the way I'mapproaching this.
Like any person would say, thankyou very much for asking.
Yes, I would love for, for youto think bigger now as opposed
to just tactical or somethingelse like that.
And that's an, that's aconversation for changing the
what you do in your value add.
(29:33):
And if the person is completely,unwilling to speak about it, my
guess honestly would be thatthey're looking to get out.
And so they don't have time intheir brain space for you, but
not because of you, but becauseof them.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (29:47):
Yeah, that's an interesting point.
Yeah, I've seen that scenariotoo, and I think what you said,
highlight something else reallyimportant is.
A lot of times chiefs of staffhave to coach their principal
and sometimes it's very metawhere it's like, we need, I need
to coach you on how to speak tome.
And so being open, like yousaid, and transparent is like,
here, let me just demonstrate.
Like let me go first type ofthing.
(30:07):
And then sometimes I've foundthat I.
When chiefs of staff give themlike examples or like open the
door, like, is it this?
Or like, you know, I know, couldI be doing this differently in
this type of meeting?
Or is it this that just opensthe door where it's like, it's
not, you know, it's not quitethat, but this, this, this, and
this over here might besomething that we can look at
and that just opens the door.
So I love that you, that youmentioned that a few, just a few
(30:28):
things as we wind down here.
Um, how do you tell if it's.
If it's, uh, productive tensionor 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 likesomeone's, uh, like person or
like attributes, like we're nottalking about the work or the
project or how we showed up atthe client meeting.
(30:51):
It's, you know, you are amorally bad person.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (30:55):
Yeah, I think both people have to
agree on what is in, in, inbounds and what is out of bounds
and, and that is sometimesdictated by company policies and
and laws,
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (31:08):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03 (31:08):
sometimes it's a negotiation between
people.
So for example, I.
one person, um, comes from aculture where slamming their
fist on the desk is just anormal course of doing business,
but another person finds thatextremely frightening.
I.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (31:24):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-0 (31:25):
there's no, uh uh, you know, the, the
fist is going down onto thetable, not at the person.
Right?
So that, but that's an exampleof, hey, out of bounds for me,
like I, I'm not comfortablespeaking to you.
Doesn't matter what the issuesare with you being physical like
that, and that, then it's apoint of consideration of if
that's how you want you to hearit, then I have to adjust.
(31:45):
So that, I would say havingconversations like that, I mean,
this is an extreme example, butit could be when, when the other
person is triggered is when theproblem is whoever is triggered.
The other person, I would say,owes them some consideration to,
to avoid triggering them as muchas possible.
I.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (32:02):
Okay.
Is there any other tells towhere like, this is like, okay,
as chief of staff, you're oftensitting in team meetings where
it's like.
Part of this is good, like letthis conversation happen.
It's like people are kind ofgetting animated about it, but
that's actually a good thingversus, okay, now it's gone out
of bounds.
I need to guide it back inbounds or call timeout.
Hey, stop.
Is there any other tells to lookfor with that?
(32:24):
Yep.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (32:24):
if people are getting shut down and
you know, part of it's watchingthe room and when someone gets
quiet, when someone, one persongets overly aggressive,
assertive, and that causes theother person to back away,
that's a time to say it was thatintentional.
And what was going on there, andthen maybe have a debrief
afterwards and say, yeah, thisdid not go as planned in a
(32:46):
negative way.
And then I'm using verydiplomatic language, right?
So this, this was, this wentoff.
Right.
Um, and so we don't wanna have arepeat of that.
So first let's figure out, youknow, Alex, you raised your
voice, Emily, and it cost Emilyto not speak something.
Alex, you owe her aconversation.
And that's something that shouldbe, that, that would be in that
chief of staff role to say.
(33:06):
So then
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (33:07):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-0 (33:07):
listen, didn't mean it.
That was just, I got toopassionate about so and so.
And so then we have that, and,and by the time we have the next
meeting, Emily and Alex areactually closer as coworkers
because of that.
emily-sander_1_03-05-20 (33:18):
Mm-hmm.
alex-yaroslavsky_1 (33:18):
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 therole.
And then the other part is toovertly say it's okay for us to
disagree and I'm gonna be thereferee in my role here.
So your job is to be passionateand 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 (33:40):
Yeah, well back to your like American
football example.
You know, when they throw theflags where there's a penalty,
it's kinda like, okay, like youguys go at it, like you guys go
at it hard and then I'll justthrow a flag if like, look, that
argument has no basis in kind ofwhat we're talking about here.
Um, before I forget, onequestion is.
High level guidelines on whatyou say in a group setting
versus what you say afterwardone-on-one.
(34:02):
So it might be like at the grouplevel, it's like, Hey, like just
time out.
We're gonna go in thisdirection.
And then afterward, like in thehallway, or you know, the next
day, you have that one-on-oneconversation with the different
participants.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (34:14):
I would say avoid shaming people
in a group setting.
So I would not say, uh, at thispoint to Alex.
Alex, you are out of line.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (34:23):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (34:24):
I would not say that.
I would say on the other handsomething like, you know, I'm
hearing this conversation and Ithink we, we reached a heat
level of eight and I think wewanna stop at a seven and a
half, so let's pause this andlet's continue that.
And that gives people themessage like, okay, like that's
a nice way of saying enough cooloff.
And
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (34:43):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-20 (34:43):
you know, I've noticed when that
happened, you did this.
And that is something we wannaavoid in the future.
Something like that, that's aprivate conversation.
So then people can save face andclear things up without being
publicly shamed.
I.
emily-sander_1_03-05-202 (34:57):
Right.
What would you say in terms ofavoiding conflicts we've talked
about like, hey, there's,there's this good kind of
conflict which you wanna engagein.
Um, are there times where it'slike, you know what?
I feel like I wanna give thisperson a piece of my mind, but
right now is not the time, rightnow is not the time to have
that, that conversation
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (35:17):
I, I'm not actually a big fan of
avoiding, but I'm a fan ofpostponing, is what I'm hearing
you say.
So.
emily-sander_1_03-05- (35:23):
tomorrow.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03 (35:23):
Tomorrow.
Tomorrow, right?
Yeah.
So you wanna, you want toexpress, and I would also say if
you wanna give someone a pieceof your mind, I would not give
'em a piece of your mind.
I would say, what is it youwant?
Deal with your drama internallyand then come out, say something
when you actually have somethingcurious to ask about what
happened or something that youwant to explain that happened to
(35:44):
you.
And, and so I have a kinda afour step model of that.
Care, clarity, curiosity, andchoice.
So care means you have toremember there's a human being
there, even though you disagree.
Uh, clarity is doing thatinternal work of saying, what am
I solving for?
What is my trigger?
What do I really want?
And that happens before theconversation.
(36:05):
Curiosity.
It happens at the conversation.
So instead of giving a piece ofyour mind, you go in saying,
here's what happened on my side.
What happened on your side?
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (36:13):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2 (36:13):
Then choice is about, I want to offer
the other person a chance tofigure out how to help me rather
than tell'em what to do.
don't wanna control, just wannagive'em what the end point is.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_ (36:25):
Yes, so.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (36:25):
a 10% risk adjusted growth that?
emily-sander_1_03-05-20 (36:29):
Gotcha.
And the last thing I'll leave uswith is hitting on something you
just you mentioned earlier,which is that, um, conflict and
these even heated, heatedarguments can bring people
closer together.
And that's a huge piece.
'cause after you've kind of goneto battle, there is that sense
of like, now we're somehowcloser, which is like
interesting dynamic.
So can you touch on that to windus down here?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (36:51):
Yeah, as long as, as people understand
again what they are doing, it'sokay to battle as long as they,
it's in the context of our, ofour.
Ongoing positive relationship.
And
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (37:00):
Yeah.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (37:01):
to make amends when things are, uh,
when things are heated.
And I'll give you a perfectexample.
I was speaking to one of myclosest lifetime friends, I've
known each other for 45 years,and, um, and our discussion got
heated and I sort of said, youkidding, this is not so, et
cetera.
And this guy said, look, I'msorry.
I did not mean to upset you.
And I really wasn't mad at him.
(37:21):
I was just sort of passionateabout the discussion, but the
fact that he actually said that,that he what, he showed his care
toward me.
And so that actually brought uscloser, 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 endingto a discussion that was, if
you'd hear it in the middle, itwould be very loud and
(37:41):
boisterous.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (37:43):
Yeah.
And I remember one time I waslike, we were in this like group
conversation and this, we weretalking about like 24,000
something, I think it wasdollars or conference attendees
or something.
I think it was a dollars for aconference.
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.
(38:04):
I was like, let's call him Rob.
Like I was like, Rob, did youjust say a million?
He was like, that was just for adramatic effect and everyone
just started laughing.
It was like, okay, we're noteven talking in the realm, but
laughing is, is a big one.
It broke the ice.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (38:18):
Yeah.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025 (38:18):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Got it.
Perfect.
Alex, you've shared so much andI'm sure it's just tip of the
iceberg for everything that youdo 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 toconnect with you?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05- (38:35):
Yeah.
So go to conflict yes.com.
And, uh, that is my websitethere.
I have resources there, and youcan also contact me and I'll,
I'll be happy to, to chat withyou about ways that we can work
together.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_0 (38:47):
And do you work with, um,
individuals, with teams?
Do you do workshops?
What types of things do youoffer?
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-2025 (38:52):
I typically work with teams and
organizations, um, but if anindividual has a problem at work
in the context of that, I'mhappy to chat about that as
well.
And I offer trainings, groupcoaching, and individual
one-on-one coaching, as well as,of course, conflict resolution
for those emergencies.
emily-sander_1_03-05-2025_08 (39:09):
So conflict yes.
Dot com.
We'll have that in the shownotes.
Alex, thank you again.
alex-yaroslavsky_1_03-05-202 (39:13):
My pleasure.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com