At senior level the ordinary machinery stops fitting. A grievance procedure assumes someone more senior can hear it — awkward at executive level, impossible at board level. HR is frequently subordinate to at least one participant. And any formal process becomes visible within days and is read, correctly, as instability.
The Situations, and Why the Choice Is Starker Here
Executives whose working relationship has broken down while both remain essential. A chief executive and a chair with incompatible views of their respective roles. Board members in sustained conflict over strategy, governance or the conduct of meetings. A founder and the professional management team appointed to run what the founder built — a recurring and particularly difficult pattern. Functional heads whose dispute has hardened into something personal and is now perfectly visible to everyone below them, with predictable effects on their teams. Overlapping territory after a merger or restructure. And the boards of charities and not-for-profits, where governance disputes are frequently the most bitter of all, because everyone is a volunteer, everyone is convinced they are acting for the cause, and nobody can be dismissed. What these share is that the people involved are usually too valuable, too visible or too contractually protected to be managed out quietly — so the real choice is between a costly public rupture and a quiet structured conversation. Further down an organisation there are intermediate options; at this level there are largely not.
Confidentiality, the Story, and the Legal Boundary
Communications are protected by the Mediation Act 2017, but at senior level the practical arrangements matter as much as the statutory position: where the sessions happen (rarely on the organisation’s own premises, for obvious reasons), what is recorded, who knows the process is happening at all, and what is said to the wider organisation during and afterwards. Agreed messaging is often the most important single term, because at this level the story travels regardless — the only real question is whether it travels in a version both parties agreed or in a version assembled from speculation in a corridor. There is also a boundary that must be respected. Mediation can address how directors work together, how meetings are run, how information flows, how disagreement is expressed and recorded, and how a board and an executive function together. It cannot determine whether duties have been breached, and it cannot displace obligations falling on directors individually — those are legal questions that may require advice, disclosure or formal action, and they are not negotiable in a room. Where a governance dispute has a genuine legal dimension it gets identified early and dealt with properly alongside, with the firm’s company practice. And where the outcome is that someone should leave — a legitimate result — that is recognised openly rather than drifted into: exit terms are a negotiation needing separate advice on each side, at settlementagreementsolicitor.ie, while mediation’s remaining value is around the departure: timing, sequencing, messaging, handover, and how two people in a small professional market leave things.
A Senior Relationship the Organisation Cannot Afford to Lose?
Discreet, and confidential from the first call. Ten lines on the situation, everyone involved and the entity for the conflicts check - and where sessions can be held away from your own building.
Call 01 5827148