How to restart cooperation after a conflict never got resolved

Restart cooperation after an unresolved executive conflict by agreeing on the work that must happen next. Acknowledge the unfinished issue without forcing friendship, forgiveness, or a shared account of every past event. Set observable handoff rules and a proper route for any concern that ordinary management cannot resolve.

A future-work agreement is a specific arrangement for how people will perform shared responsibilities despite an unresolved relationship dispute. This is an advisory operating definition. Its research context includes Jehn’s 1995 distinction between relationship and task conflict. That distinction supports examining personal incompatibility separately from a current work decision; the paper does not validate the agreement proposed here.

Find the routine task that now depends on you

Composite scene: You are at home preparing for a weekend trip when two executives separately ask you to relay ordinary updates. Their disagreement began months ago. Each message sounds reasonable, but you have become the link between functions that need to work directly together.

Choose one of those handoffs as the starting point. Identify the required information, its recipient, and the decision it supports. Ask what would have to happen for the handoff to proceed without your personal intervention.

Avoid opening with a demand to put the past behind them. One person may believe the issue was never acknowledged. Another may believe it was settled. A future-work conversation can state that the disagreement remains while establishing responsibilities that do not depend on resolving every interpretation today.

Decide whether ordinary cooperation is the right scope

Confirm that the unresolved issue can appropriately be addressed through a work agreement. Allegations involving harassment, discrimination, retaliation, threats, or other misconduct need the relevant HR, legal, or investigative process. Do not use a cooperation agreement to suppress or settle a complaint informally.

The CEO may also be part of the history. If your earlier decision created the ambiguity, explain it and correct the operating instruction. Do not appoint yourself a neutral judge of an event in which you have an undisclosed stake.

For disputes requiring a different process or independent support, use the severity-and-neutrality test. Keep immediate work instructions and formal concerns distinct, with qualified advice on interim arrangements where necessary.

Separate cooperation, trust, and reconciliation

Cooperation means carrying out the agreed shared work. Trust involves a willingness to rely on another person under relevant uncertainty. Reconciliation concerns the relationship itself. Use these as practical distinctions rather than treating them as interchangeable outcomes.

An executive may complete a handoff while remaining cautious about reliance. They may agree to a response window without accepting the other person’s account of the past. Those arrangements can be useful if they meet the role requirement and do not override a formal process.

Do not claim that a signed agreement restores trust. Review what actually happens in the work. The purpose is to create a credible basis for cooperation, with enough clarity to identify whether the arrangement is being followed.

The future-work agreement method

1. Acknowledge the unresolved issue narrowly

Ask each executive to describe the work consequence of the past dispute and the concern that remains relevant now. Keep the scope bounded. You are identifying what the current arrangement must accommodate, not inviting an unlimited recounting of grievances.

Summarize areas of agreement and disagreement without inventing a joint story. For example: “You agree that the approval handoff failed. You differ about which instruction governed it. We need a clear approval route for the next request.” Verify that the summary is accurate enough to proceed.

2. Specify the shared work

Choose an actual recurring responsibility. In a hypothetical product launch, one executive may need a confirmed scope from another before preparing the delivery plan. Identify what information must move and which decision depends on it.

Include the context the receiver needs. A file sent without the current assumptions may technically meet a deadline while leaving the work unusable. State the required content and how the receiving person will confirm that a material gap has been addressed.

3. Agree on observable conduct

Define how requests are made, acknowledged, and answered. Use realistic response expectations tied to the work. Avoid requiring unlimited availability or using constant copying of the CEO as the default guarantee.

Describe prohibited behavior in concrete terms where appropriate. Examples might include changing an agreed owner without notifying them or withholding a required input from the established channel. Have qualified owners review conduct rules with employment implications. Do not turn the agreement into an informal disciplinary document without the proper process.

4. Create a bounded escalation route

State what happens when the input is incomplete, the deadline cannot be met, or an instruction conflicts with another priority. Identify who can resolve each type of issue. Separate a request for clarification from an accusation that the agreement has been breached.

Use the escalation route when the threshold is met. The CEO should not keep answering private messages that recreate the old relay arrangement. Where immediate protection or a formal complaint is involved, follow the relevant specialist process rather than the ordinary handoff rule.

5. Review completed work together

Choose a meaningful upcoming handoff and an agreed review point. Compare the actual request, response, and receiving team’s next action with the agreement. Let each executive correct factual inaccuracies in the account.

If the handoff works, acknowledge the specific behavior. If it fails, identify which requirement was not met and why. Do not report the result as a global verdict that one executive is cooperative and the other is impossible.

Write the agreement so a colleague could use it

A short operating note can state the shared task, sender, receiver, required input, acknowledgment, exception route, and review point. Mark any unresolved historical issue separately. Keep access appropriate to the purpose and sensitivity of the information.

For the hypothetical launch, the note might say that commercial scope reaches the delivery owner through the agreed project channel. The delivery owner identifies missing inputs before confirming a plan. Material scope changes return to the authorized decision owner rather than moving through a private instruction.

These are illustrative arrangements. Your actual workflow and authority should supply the details. Avoid copying an example that imposes unrealistic timing or conflicts with existing obligations.

Proposed wording for the joint conversation

We have an unresolved issue from [event], and I will not require a shared personal interpretation today. The work now requires [specific handoff]. I want us to agree on the input, the receiving owner’s response, and the route for a genuine exception. We will review an actual example at [checkpoint]. Any matter requiring a formal process will stay in that process rather than being traded for cooperation.

If one executive says, “I cannot trust them,” ask what reliance the present task requires and which explicit information or boundary could make that task workable. Do not pressure them to withdraw the statement or promise restored trust.

If the requested boundary would make the role impossible, name that conflict. Use the proper management or specialist process to resolve it. A future-work agreement cannot make every arrangement feasible.

Hear concerns without reopening every decision

Edmondson’s 1999 psychological-safety study concerns the interpersonal risk of speaking up in teams. Applied here, it gives a reason to let someone identify an incomplete handoff without automatically being accused of restarting the dispute.

Clarify the difference between correcting a current fact and reopening a settled operating choice. The executives should be able to flag a missing customer requirement. They should also understand who can authorize a different launch scope.

Do not claim that a discussion format guarantees psychological safety. Look at the response to a real correction. If a person is penalized informally for using the agreed channel, inspect that conduct through the appropriate route.

Treat fairness as several questions

Colquitt’s 2001 organizational-justice research distinguishes procedures, outcomes, treatment, and explanations. Use the distinctions when reviewing the agreement. Does one executive receive a broader obligation without a work reason? Are exceptions explained consistently? Is an unfavorable allocation being confused with disrespectful treatment?

The proposed note is not a validated fairness measure. Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, supplies concepts for examining the arrangement; it does not replace judgment about the actual responsibilities.

If an executive objects to the outcome but accepts the process, record the disagreement accurately. If the process is inconsistent, repair it. Do not use a polite meeting as evidence that every fairness concern has been answered.

When one participant changes roles, revisit the agreement before assigning it to a successor. The new role may have different information needs or authority. Transfer the current work requirements without passing on a speculative account of the former relationship as though it were a verified performance finding.

Stop being the permanent messenger

After introducing the agreement, redirect routine relay requests. Ask whether the sender used the agreed channel and what specific threshold requires your involvement. Help resolve a real gap without resuming ownership of every exchange.

Continue monitoring the shared task at the level your role requires. You do not need to inspect private relationships or test whether the executives socialize. The relevant evidence is whether the necessary work moves accurately and concerns reach a suitable decision owner.

A useful review can end with a limited conclusion: the launch handoff worked under the current agreement, while the historical disagreement remains. That conclusion is more credible than declaring a repaired relationship from one successful meeting. Keep the work agreement current as responsibilities change, and leave personal reconciliation to the people whose relationship it is.