Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more.

READ TIME: 8 MINUTES | 10 JUNE, 2026 | READ ON PHILHSC.COM​

The room had been going for forty minutes and nobody was listening anymore.

I was there as an observer. The CEO ran a biotechnology company that had two therapies slated for market, and almost none of the pieces sat under one roof. Development in one place. Manufacturing in another. Distribution somewhere else again, inside a partner organisation with its own culture, its own incentives, its own way of doing things. His job was to hold all of it together across companies and geographies that had no real reason to move at the same speed.

On this morning, one of the partners had reached his limit. He believed he’d been asked to stand up distribution for both therapies inside the same 18-month window. He hadn’t. But the brief had been unclear for weeks, and the lack of clarity kept confirming the version of events that made him angriest. He was loud and he was specific about the wrong thing. And the longer he went, the more the rest of the room started arguing about everything except the actual problem.

I waited for the CEO to interject and pull him into line.

He didn’t.

He let the man finish, then asked him one question.

What’s the best outcome for you right now?

That was it. The room went quiet for what seemed like an eternity. It was a great question because it was impossible to answer while still shouting. The partner stopped, thought and when he spoke again the volume was gone and the real issue was sitting on the table where everyone could see it. He wasn’t afraid of the work. He was afraid of being held to a deadline he couldn’t hit and being blamed for it later.

That was the issue the argument had been hiding.

I watched this CEO use the same question on different occasions over the time I worked near him. Different rooms, different fights, same move. Each time the argument was heated, and someone was conflating multiple issues into one and getting louder to compensate. And each time the question did the heavy lifting: it put an end to the spiralling meeting and made one person name the thing they wanted.

Here’s what I’ve learned watching him.

When a team loses situational awareness, it isn’t usually because people lack information. It’s because emotion has fused several problems into one undifferentiated mass. The volume goes up because the clarity has gone down. People argue harder precisely because they can no longer see what they’re arguing about.

A leader’s instinct in that moment can be to attempt to add clarity from where they sit. To try a different explanation, to correct or to re-present the facts. And it almost never works, because the person who’s lost the thread can’t take in new information while they’re still defending their position.

One question, three benefits

This question works because it does the opposite. It doesn’t push information in, it pulls specificity out.

‘What’s the best outcome for you right now?’ forces three things to happen at once.

It demands specificity. It’s difficult to answer it with a grievance. You have to name a result.

It commands calm. The question can’t be shouted. The act of answering lowers the temperature in the asker before the leader says anything else.

And it isolates the protagonist. It turns the heat away from the group and onto one person’s actual want, which is almost always narrower and more reasonable than the noise suggested.

What it really does is hand the problem back to the person holding it, in a form small enough to solve.

On the bridge at 3am

I heard a version of the same discipline from Rear Admiral Lee Goddard when he described being called to the bridge of his ship in the middle of the night.

It was three o’clock in the morning and the junior officer of the watch had lost situational awareness in a busy waterway, surrounded by ships with almost no margin for error. That is exactly when you wake the captain. The officer made the call. Goddard came up.

He had seen this done before, years earlier, as a young midshipman. His own captain had walked onto a chaotic bridge in the Malacca Strait, one of the busiest waterways in the world. The captain raised his binoculars, looked through the window, began calmly issuing commands, and sat down. The bridge settled. People went back to their jobs, and the situation came back under control.

Fifteen years later it was Goddard’s turn, and by his own account he walked to the bridge window with no idea what he was going to say. What came out, he told me, was not a speech. He started giving directions. He started bringing the tone of tension down. And within minutes the officers and sailors around him were doing their jobs well and the situation was in hand.

Two very different rooms. A commercial negotiation in a conference room. A warship bridge at sea. No shared technique between them. One leader asked a single question. The other issued quiet commands.

What they shared was the read of the situation.

They both understood that the problem in front of them was not a missing fact. It was lost situational awareness, and that you cannot restore it by adding more noise to a room that already has too much. You restore it by lowering the tone of tension first, so that the people in the room can see again.

There’s a second valuable lesson in Goddard’s story. The reason he got the chance to lower the tone of tension at all was that the junior officer called him. That only happens when people trust they can surface bad news without being punished for it. The officer wasn’t afraid to say he’d lost the picture.

Compare that to the biotech partner, who was frightened of exactly that. Frightened of being held to something he couldn’t deliver and blamed when it went wrong. The fear didn’t make him quiet. It made him loud. And ironically, it buried what he needed to say until the CEO’s question gave him a way to say it.

Signal of safety

A team that can’t lower its own tone of tension is usually a team where it isn’t safe to name the real problem out loud. So the real issue comes out sideways as volume, as blame or an argument about the wrong thing.

This is the part most new and aspiring CEOs get wrong about their own role (and I used to get this wrong as well). They think clarity is something you deliver. A better brief, a cleaner presentation or a tighter meeting. It can be but that usually doesn’t work in a heated room because in those circumstances, clarity is something you draw out of the people who have lost it.

Your job isn’t to win the argument or even to settle it. Your job is to lower the tone of tension far enough that the actual issue can surface, and then to make the loudest person in the room say what they actually need.

The deadline confusion in that biotech meeting got fixed in a follow-up email. It was never really the problem. The problem was a capable partner who was afraid of being set up to fail and had no way to say so while the room was at full volume.

One question gave him the way. A calm presence on a bridge did the same thing for a crew at 3am.

You don’t need the exact words, and you won’t always need words at all. You need to recognise the moment for what it is. Tension has risen, situational awareness has dropped, and the people in the room are arguing because they can no longer see clearly.

So, the next time a meeting gets heated and people start arguing, notice your first impulse. If it’s to step in and explain, you’re about to add to the noise.

Lower the tone of tension first. Then ask.

What’s the best outcome for them, right now?

See you next Wednesday.

Phil Hayes-St Clair
CEO Coach

PS If this essay helped, Episode 211 (Rear Admiral Lee Goddard CSC on human side of trust, accountability and leadership) from my podcast is worth a listen. Tune in on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.