Rich Fernandez 

Rich is the CEO of SIY Global. He was previously the director of executive education and people development at Google, where he was also one of the first SIY teachers. Rich previously founded Wisdom Labs and has also served in senior roles at eBay, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America. He received his PhD in Psychology from Columbia University and is a frequent contributor to the Harvard Business Review.

 

Transcript:

Rich Fernandez:
I'm joined by Ilana Robbins Gross. I'm Rich Fernandez. Welcome to our seminar on transforming conflict. I wanted to tell you just a little bit, perhaps, about my background. I'll ask Ilana to share about hers. If you're joining live, please let us know also where you're joining from. We often have people from all over the world, so if you want to chat that in, we'd be happy to see that.

So again, my name is Rich Fernandez. I'm the CEO of SIY Global. We focus on delivering social and emotional intelligence skills in organizations—for individuals, teams, and for organizations as a whole.

I'm seeing folks joining from all over the world again—from Atlanta, LaGrange, Georgia, from Bonn, Germany. Welcome.

If you're just joining us, please let us know where you're joining from. It's great to see our global audience. Like I was saying, we are an organization that operates in over 60 countries around the world, teaching social and emotional intelligence skills to individuals, teams, and leaders.

One topic we often hear is: conflict, conflict, conflict. It's something that is pretty much a feature—not a bug—of organizational life, of working in teams, of working in collaborative contexts. We really want to address the idea of conflict. I love the fact that we have this global audience to do so. I'm seeing in the chat people from London, Barcelona, Bali (Indonesia), Vancouver (British Columbia)—so welcome, everybody.

A little bit about my background: I was trained in psychology, focused on organizational psychology, had a long career in that—almost two decades—working for large organizations: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, eBay. The last role I had was at Google, where I was leading executive development there, which is senior leader development.

Certainly, in traveling through all those organizations, conflict was a key topic. I have lots of experience with models of managing conflict, but perhaps the most present and relevant one is using social and emotional intelligence skills, which is our specialty here at SIY Global.

So that's a little about me. Let me pause there and invite you, Ilana, to say hello and introduce yourself as well.

Ilana Robbins Gross: (2:30)
Thank you so much, Rich. Hello, everyone—so excited to be here with all of you.

My name is Ilana, and I am the Global Head of People and Culture at SIY Global. The way I would describe my job is: our organization really looks at how we can transform companies and company culture to create a really supportive, sort of “next way of working” environment.

I think the way I see my job is: how can we take what it is we're trying to do out in the world and actually apply it internally? How can we be our own testing ground for all of these things?

So I'm really excited for this topic today. As Rich said, conflict is a feature—not a bug. I think conflict is just a part of life, and a really important part of life, and having open communication and conversation.

This is definitely something we deal with internally. I also have experience elsewhere working around this topic. In terms of my background, my work has mainly been in community organizing and education, and then some additional work in the tech startup world.

I've been at SIY Global now for eight years, so I've had a range of roles here. I’ve had the opportunity to see our organization from multiple perspectives. That's something I always try to bring to the work we're doing here.

So again, just so excited to be here with you and talking about this topic. Maybe, Rich, I'll get started with a question to you—if that's all right?

Rich Fernandez: (4:03)
Absolutely. And as we go through this, I’ll invite anyone who's participating: send in your questions or your comments via chat or via the Q&A button on Zoom.

Yeah—let's get into it, Ilana. Have fun. And actually, before I do that—just a quick side note: if anyone has any tech problems, you can chat directly to Grace or Carlin. You'll see they're listed there with a dash and “SIY Global.” They're here to support and help us.

Any questions on the more technical side—please feel free to reach out to them.

Ilana Robbins Gross:
So I think my first question: for us, emotional intelligence is really a cornerstone of what we do and what we're trying to bring out into the world. I think a lot of times, people think emotional intelligence means being nice at all times, and I think that's really a misconception.

I’d love to hear from you a little bit about that—this misconception around emotional intelligence as “niceness.” And also, how can emotional intelligence, within that framework, really support us to have difficult conversations?

Rich Fernandez:
Absolutely—great question. There is a lot of misconception around emotional intelligence. I think for a lot of people, it means—as you said—being nice, being emotional, feeling your feelings.

But we really use a model of emotional intelligence that has been developed over many years, originating from Salovey and Mayer, who were doing work out of Yale, and eventually made popular by Daniel Goleman, who's a science journalist for The New York Times and a world-famous author.

It's really a model of emotional intelligence that looks at four dimensions. One is a personal dimension, having to do with your own thoughts, feelings, and intuitions. The personal dimension involves self-awareness as well as self-management—so those are directed at you, yourself.

Then the second two components—the other parts of emotional intelligence—involve social or interpersonal skills. So that's social awareness and then relationship management.

The idea is that if you're able to have some degree of self-awareness and manage your emotions, thoughts, and intuitions, then you’re able to become socially aware as well—aware of the thoughts, feelings, emotional states of others—and manage relationships effectively.

So it's that four-dimensional model of emotional intelligence that we use when we train individuals, teams, leaders to develop these skills. And it's really critical when we talk about things like collaboration—but also conflict—because there's the capacity to apply those same four-dimensional skills of emotional intelligence in any situation, particularly a situation of conflict.

It becomes really important—and typically gets ignored in those heated situations. It's like what I like to call the iceberg model: you know how an iceberg has maybe 10 to 20 percent of its actual mass above the waterline, and 80 percent below? It's that 80 percent that we tend not to pay attention to—that’s critical in those situations.

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Thank you, Rich, for sharing that.

I think I would also add that when we can better understand where we are coming from in those conversations, it allows us to engage more openly. And maybe acknowledge those things that are better left aside—right? Like, not every emotion or feeling is needed in that conflict.

It can also create real understanding with those we’re speaking to. Where might they be coming from? How can we develop empathy and understand that—and use that as the base of a conversation?

Rich Fernandez:
Absolutely. And I think, coming back to your earlier point, it’s exactly that approach—a sort of tuning approach. Tuning to yourself, tuning to others, so that you can respond effectively and skillfully.

That's the way to harness emotional intelligence. And that’s also why it’s not simply about “making nice” or being nice. It’s actually about being assertive—being, first of all, aware, and choiceful, and skillful. Even assertive about your needs, and seeking to understand the needs of the counterparty—who you may be in conflict or collaboration with.

All of that is action-oriented. It's not about simply saying, “Let’s just all be nice.” So that's a really important myth to bust. It’s not just about niceness—it’s about emotional intelligence as an actionable skill.

Ilana Robbins Gross:
And I think something both of us spoke to in our introductions was really this: conflict is part of life, and it's actually a really important part of the way we work together as teams and the way we interact.

I'm curious if you could just share a little more about your perspective on that—on why you think conflict is so important?

Rich Fernandez:
Yeah—and I'll even share an example that came about yesterday, or earlier this week. I think on Monday.

Conflict is a feature—not a bug—of teamwork. It's a feature—not a bug—of collaboration, of cross-functional collaboration, of organizations where everybody, by design, has slightly different agendas—or at a minimum, different perspectives based on where they sit and what roles they have.

Friction exists. But is it productive friction? Is it healthy friction? Or is it unproductive and negatively disruptive friction?

We talk a lot about disruptive technologies and positive disruption—well, there’s also negative disruption that derails a team, an agenda, or the work you need to accomplish.

So, with conflict and friction being ever-present, the question is: is it healthy and productive? Does it promote exploration, debate, and progress? Or does it derail you?

I think it's really important to bring friction into conversation—to maybe even invite it in a productive way.

So, again rather than talk abstractly, I’ll talk about an example.

In our leadership team here, we’ve been having a lot of debates about how to best align the organization and our structure with some of the emerging business opportunities we have. Right? So we have some interesting new opportunities to work with large organizations.

What is the best sort of configuration?

...It looks like I bounced off the Zoom call for some reason—is that true?

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Same thing happened to me.

Rich Fernandez:
Okay. I think we’re back?

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
I think we’re back.

Rich Fernandez:
We’re back. I’m not sure where we left off... Thank you, everyone—thanks for all the texts. We're back.

Where did we leave off?

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
We were talking about healthy and unhealthy friction. The last thing I heard you say was starting your example about our leadership team and trying to debate about the best ways to align with the needs of our business.

Rich Fernandez:
Right.

So a big discussion along the leadership team. One of the things I invited and said was: “Let’s please have healthy debate. Let’s please think about the things we haven’t thought about or haven’t said or vocalized.” So that we can really look at this from all perspectives: how do we best create the right team to pursue these new business opportunities that are coming up?

And... there was disagreement. There was even conflict. This was Monday—a lot of you were there too; you’re part of our relationship team.

However, it was all within a certain spirit: how do we design the best team to deliver against this business opportunity?

In the end, what I requested was: let’s have a really healthy debate, and let’s see how we can get to alignment as a team.

An important principle here is: if you disagree, is it possible to commit? Can you disagree but commit?

You may have a different perspective on things. And the debate turned out to show that there was logic on every side of it. Everybody—even people who had conflicting positions—had good reasons. There was logic to it.

But we had to come to a place where we were aligned. And I think there's still probably some disagreement, but a willingness to commit—at least to what we had decided as a group.

So I think that’s an example of healthy friction.

Ilana, I think you've been here longer than I have—you’ve seen past instances where there was unhealthy friction. I remember someone saying, “No. I’m not doing that. Period. And I’m going to hold up this process until I get what I want.”

That’s an example of unhealthy friction.

So it’s really important to distinguish and work toward the healthy, productive kind of friction.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yeah, and I think that’s a great example of healthy friction.

Maybe I’ll talk about a few things I saw in there that I think really helped it to be productive.

I think one thing is: we’re each coming from our own perspective. Our aperture is limited. And I think by inviting in different perspectives, there's the ability for us to actually come to better conclusions. We’re looking at more information and new ways of thinking.

For myself, something I often think is: yes, prove me wrong. Right? I don’t know everything. There’s so much that I don’t know. Help me see what I don’t know so that I can expand my vision and make a better decision—for myself and for the organization.

In order to do that, you need to be able to create a space where people feel comfortable voicing dissent, which I think is something you did really well here, Rich.

And you also spoke about the importance of disagreeing and committing. I think sometimes if people don’t feel like they’ve had the opportunity to have their say, then it’s hard for them to commit. Right? They’re a little bitter—like, “Ugh, I don’t agree, and you didn’t even listen to me.”

I think that, as leaders, it’s really important to create space where people feel truly listened to. Where they feel comfortable sharing. And then, from there, to be able to say: “Okay, you heard everything that was said, and whether this was the decision I would’ve made or not, you made that decision—and I’m here for it.”

I think that’s how you really facilitate that “disagree and commit” model you spoke to.

---

Rich Fernandez:
Absolutely. And I would also be remiss—and probably not give the full picture—if I didn’t give a little more context here. Which is: it required some relationship management.

So I’ll tell you—I also did some pre-meetings before our leadership meeting. One-on-one meetings with team members to understand their perspectives. To really say: “Tell me what your concerns are.”

Coming back to what we said in the beginning of this webinar—the emotional intelligence piece—I had to manage myself. Because I was trying to drive to an outcome, right? As the leader of this team, I’m trying to drive to a conclusion.

That’s the self-awareness piece I tried to exercise. I had to be aware of that desire to drive to a conclusion. Manage that. And then think about the social piece, which is: I think some of my team members have other points of view.

So I literally—before this leadership team meeting—had a couple of one-offs with folks who I knew had concerns. Rather than sweep them under the rug and say, “It’s going to be like this and you better not dissent,” I actually reached out and said, “I want to better understand. I’m curious—please share.”

Because like I said—there’s logic in what you’re saying. Let’s flesh it out. Let’s talk it through together.

I think that really helped. So that by the time we arrived—that was the social awareness and relationship management piece—those two interpersonal dimensions of emotional intelligence—I had managed myself on the personal side, and I had built awareness and connection on the social side.

And I think sometimes, that’s what’s necessary. You have to prepare the ground. That’s a relationship-based, emotional-intelligence-based activity.

Rich Fernandez:
So I literally had at least two meetings before this, with different members of the leadership team, to understand where they were coming from, what was important to them, and to see how we could find a solution together based on what we were proposing.

And it played out well. I think we arrived at an agreed-upon solution. Sometimes you don’t. You can’t always—it's not about consensus, necessarily—but it is about alignment.

Is the team going to pull together, even if people are in disagreement but still committed?

You can have that: disagreement and commitment, and still have alignment.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yeah. In terms of consent, right?

As long as I have the opportunity to really participate in the conversation and voice my opinion, I am consenting to the answer. I feel like I’m consenting to the process.

I also think—something I often think about in relationships—is that all relationships will have ruptures. There will be challenges. But if we can repair them, it helps to create psychological safety.

So I feel comfortable next time disagreeing. At the heart of this, for me, are questions of psychological safety and belonging.

How do we create that?

I think emotional intelligence is incredibly important to that. In order to create that kind of environment, oftentimes it’s like—yes, we disagree—and you’re not fired. You’re not thrown out. I’m not going to ignore you now.

It’s actually about creating a cycle of trust. So next time, I feel more comfortable sharing my opinion when I disagree.

I can share an example. I think this is particularly important in organizations with hierarchies. You’re the CEO. People report to you. You make decisions about their work, livelihood, and roles. That can sometimes make it more challenging to have a voice of dissent or to engage in a conflict.

So the more you can have those powerful repair cycles—like truly listening and helping people feel heard—and then do those small or big repairs when ruptures happen, the more people will feel comfortable sharing.

I had a direct report for a while, and we had a number of real conflicts with each other. I think we actually had one of the best relationships I’ve ever had with a direct report because we’d have challenges, and then—this is one of the tools I think is most important—we would take a pause.

Things can get heated. Take a pause. Come back to it tomorrow. Or: “I actually need five minutes.”

In our organization, we’ll often do a moment of meditation or a shared pause together, and then come back and have a conversation about what happened.

The more this direct report and I did this, the more we felt comfortable disagreeing. We knew the relationship could survive that. I think that really created a sense of psychological safety and belonging—and the ability for her to share from an honest and open place.

---

Rich Fernandez:
Absolutely, Ilana. I think psychological safety, in that example, is foundational.

It’s actually something we teach. We’ll tell you more later—we have a program on effective teaming. And psychological safety is the first foundation you build, which leads to trust, which leads to inclusion, which leads to belonging.

We have a cute acronym for that—we call it the BITS model: Belonging, Inclusion, Trust, and Safety. It’s in our program.

But I think that’s a clear example of harnessing the power of psychological safety to create trust. That’s really important because where there’s friction and disagreement—and I see a nice question here in the chat from one of our wonderful certified teachers, Carlin—it’s about separating disagreement over content from social friction in the relationship.

That’s important.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yes, I agree with that. And in some ways, that’s exactly what we’re talking about—creating the safety so that we can talk about the disagreement, but maintain a quality of relationship that allows that very conversation to take place.

---

Rich Fernandez:
You know, earlier I talked about the iceberg model—right? Twenty percent of the iceberg is above the surface.

And credit where credit is due—we derive this from the Harvard Negotiation Project. They have a model about difficult conversations that talks about the different levels in a conversation.

For us, we interpreted it like an iceberg: the part above the waterline is the content of the difficult conversation—what’s being said, what the issue is.

Below that, you have the level of feelings—what you or the other person are feeling.

And finally, the deepest level is: what you and the other person care about.

So: content, feelings, and then values or importance.

Being able to tune into that—like you did, Ilana—is critical. It gets to the heart of everything that shows up when there’s conflict or difficulty.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
And Rich, I’m sure there are people on this call who are dealing with conflict at work right now. Do you have any recommendations or tools for them?

---

Rich Fernandez:
Yeah—well, a few of them I’ve already mentioned, but I’ll reiterate and then offer one more model.

First of all: emotional intelligence.

Pretty much any situation you encounter—especially the heated, difficult ones where there’s conflict—the prescription is emotional intelligence.

Why?

Because you first have to be aware and manage yourself. You can show up extremely reactive to a conversation, or you can choose to be responsive.

Being responsive versus reactive is a critical distinction.

To be responsive—to really understand where your position is and how you’re willing to work with another person on their conflicting position—it requires self-awareness. “Hey, this is what I’m thinking, feeling, about to say.” Then self-management—so that you can choose whether or not to say that thing.

That’s the personal side of emotional intelligence.

Then comes the social side: social awareness—what’s important to them? How are they showing up? What are they feeling?

That’s where the Harvard Negotiation model is helpful again: What are they saying? What are they feeling? What do they care about?

Same for you.

So: the four dimensions of emotional intelligence. First two—self-awareness and self-management. That’s your first job. Be aware, manage yourself.

Then pivot to the next two—social awareness and relationship management. Once you’ve got a handle on yourself, shift to being aware of the other person and managing the conversation and relationship.

Rich Fernandez:
So when I say “manage that relationship,” I mean: manage that conversation. Engage in that conversation.

And I’m suggesting that you can use that Harvard Negotiation Project model. Think about the content of what’s being said. Think about what you and the other person may be feeling. Usually, in instances of conflict, it’s anger or some other powerful, often negative emotion.

But that’s just the feeling level.

Because there’s a deeper level: what do they care about?

So, my suggestion—Ilana, to your point about what could be a useful tool—is really those two models:

1. The four dimensions of emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management.

2. The iceberg model of difficult conversations: content, feelings, and meaning or values—what you or the other person care about.

If you can get to that third level and move from there, you can resolve conflict.

Let me give a really concrete example—a very charged and conflicted one—of navigating conflict. This happened my first month here, in this role as CEO.

We had a partner come in, someone we’d done some work with at some point. I’ll keep it confidential and anonymous, but I’ll give you the broad sketch.

This person came in and said, “We don’t feel like you’ve delivered what we agreed to, and we’re going to sue you for a lot of money because your team didn’t do what they promised.”

Clearly, there were issues there. They kind of went on a tirade—it was rather charged and angry. Talk about negative emotions. Right here in this very office I’m sitting in now.

I invited this person in and said, “Let’s talk about what’s going on.” And this is what they opened up with.

So clearly, a situation of intense conflict, because they were threatening to sue us for a large figure.

I said, “First of all, I’d appreciate it if we leave off with the—”

But let me walk through my own model here.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yes, please do!

---

Rich Fernandez:
Right. Emotional intelligence—the personal part. Self-awareness and self-management.

When this person started saying bad things about our team, I noticed in myself my own anger rising. My own combativeness. My desire to defend.

Then I applied the second skill: manage that.

So, am I going to come back to this person and immediately open up with anger? That’s a choice I have.

What I decided to do, instead of reacting in anger, was to respond assertively—but hopefully reasonably.

So I said, “First of all, I’m very happy to engage in this conversation. But I’m going to ask you to please refrain from saying negative things about the team. Let’s focus on the issue, because I think you and I can have a conversation about that. Can we agree to that so we can proceed?”

This person took their temperature down a little bit. They were like, “Oh, we’re going to talk about the actual thing—we’re not going to talk about how terrible your team is.” Good.

So now I had entered into the social awareness dimension.

What is this person thinking and feeling?

They were frustrated. They were upset.

Then came relationship management. I said, “I would like to understand better. I’m curious. Tell me where you think the gap is, and I’d like to work with you on that.”

It became a much more civil conversation. The outcome was: I said, “I’m not sure your organization—and I can tell you, certainly not ours—is interested in the distraction or cost of a lawsuit. I believe we can find a different solution.”

So I proposed: “How about we make this accommodation to address your concern? We can do that in partnership for the next two years and contract it as such, at no cost to you or to us. And we avoid lawsuits.”

This person said, “That’s a great solution.”

They literally left this office—right here—saying, “Okay, so let’s just have our legal teams contact each other and finalize the contract. I think we’ve reached resolution.”

We shook hands, and they walked away.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Wow.

---

Rich Fernandez:
So I try to give this concrete example of actually using the dimensions of emotional intelligence in a high-conflict situation, along with that iceberg model.

Because the content coming into my office was, “I’m angry. Your team’s bad.” But the underlying feeling was frustration. And what they really cared about was: “Can we get something back from this agreement?”

Which I was able to give, at no cost.

And the situation was resolved.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
And I think something great to point out here is—this was an example where you were being nice, but not by giving them everything they wanted. Your goal wasn’t to make them feel good or to roll over.

Your goal was to acknowledge and recognize them. Understand where they were at. And still be assertive. And meet in a way that served both your organization’s needs and theirs.

I think that’s what makes it such a good example of how emotional intelligence can help you deal with conflict in a really healthy and positive way—for yourself and for the organizations involved.

---

Rich Fernandez:
Very much so.

And I’m curious—since I shared that story and model—if anyone here has questions?

Just a reminder: send them in via chat or the Q&A section. Ilana and I have dealt with a lot of conflict—because we work in an organization. We work with teams, cross-functional teams, global teams.

So, conflict—or just relationship management—comes up a lot.

We try, as Ilana said, to really practice the very skills that we teach. Sometimes it's imperfect. I don’t want this to sound like we’re running perfect models with no exceptions or leaks.

Oh, there are difficult moments. But your choice is to use skill-based tools—or run with your default tendencies in how you deal with conflict.

We see these emotional intelligence skills as just that—skills. They improve with use and practice.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
And I’ll say—Rich, you and I have worked very closely for a number of years. And we’ve had conflicts with each other. We’ve had disagreements.

And I think using these tools in those moments has really helped us build a long-term, trusting relationship—and meet each moment with intention.

Definitely not perfect. There are ouch moments. Oops moments. We make mistakes.

But I think each of those is a learning opportunity. Afterwards, we ask, “How could I have done that differently?” We talk about what happened and where things went off the rails.

And those challenging moments become really powerful growth opportunities—for us as individuals, and for our organization.

Rich Fernandez:
Absolutely.

All right, come on—I know there have got to be questions out there. And yet we’re getting zero questions on conflict and utilizing emotional intelligence skills?

But if there are no questions, maybe one other thing to explore that could be helpful for folks is: why does conflict occur?

I’ve got a three-part framework for understanding conflict. I like things in threes—sometimes fours, but this one’s a three.

So, for me, conflict usually arises due to:

1. Misunderstanding

2. Misattribution

3. Misalignment

What do I mean by that?

Misunderstanding: sometimes there's conflict because you thought someone said something, but they really meant something else. Or you thought you said something clearly, but the other person understood it differently.

That’s where it’s really important to apply self-awareness and social awareness from emotional intelligence.

Misattribution: that’s attributing intent to someone because of how you interpreted their actions—often assuming negative intent. Like, “That person’s just out to get me,” or “They’re trying to stir things up.”

That’s not always the case. In fact, it usually isn’t.

It’s important to understand why they’re coming from that perspective. For example, we’ve had situations on our team where someone said, “I had a sense of urgency,” but it came off as pushy or aggressive. That wasn’t the intent—they just wanted the work to succeed.

And then misalignment: that’s when I need this, and you need that. And those needs are in conflict.

How can we find our way, like in the example I gave earlier, to a productive solution that works for both parties?

So again: misunderstanding, misattribution, misalignment. Understanding which one is at play helps in resolving conflict.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yes—and before we get to the next question (because I see we’ve got some now!), I just want to add something to that—especially on misattribution.

I think about this a lot. In the short term, we judge ourselves by our intent, and we judge other people by their impact.

So how do I notice when I’m doing that?

How do I become aware of my own impact—and try to understand the other person’s intent?

It’s such an important distinction, and it’s something we teach in our programs too. That idea of intent vs. impact is really at the heart of so many misunderstandings.

---

Rich Fernandez:
Right—and that’s exactly where emotional intelligence comes in.

How can I bring that awareness to both myself and others in the situation?

100 percent.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
All right, I’m going to throw out one of these questions to you, Rich. Here’s one from the chat:

“How do you deal with conflict with a co-worker who is truly very different from yourself? For example: a different age, perspective, or background?”

---

Rich Fernandez:
Great question.

Here’s my go-to mantra:
Seek to understand rather than to fix.

If someone has a particular perspective, a different experience, or a different place they’re coming from, your job isn’t to fix that. It’s to understand it.

It doesn’t mean you have to agree—but it does mean you can empathize.

Our definition of empathy is: understanding the perspectives of others.

So—what is their perspective? In general, or on this specific issue? Seek them out. Hear them out.

Think about it: if someone said to you, “Can you just tell me more of what you think about that? I’m curious”—you’re probably not going to get defensive. You’ll probably be like, “Oh... they care about what I think.”

It’s a gesture of relationship. It’s a bid for connection.

So that’s what I’d say. Seek to understand. Use those interpersonal dimensions of emotional intelligence: social awareness and relationship management.

That’s what I did with that leadership team member I disagreed with—I had a different perspective, but I wanted to understand theirs. And it helped us find common ground.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
For me, there’s also a really big piece of: I may be wrong. There may be things I’m not seeing.

I desperately want to expand my perspective—always. That’s one of my core values.

So as long as I come into those conversations with that intent, it really transforms what those conversations can look like.

It’s like, “I don’t know—show me what I don’t know.” I hope I change my mind all the time—not in a waffling way, but because I’ve learned something new.

If we make space to deeply listen and understand—maybe even change our minds or realize we were wrong—I think that totally shifts the dynamic.

And one more thing I often think about during difficult conversations or conflict: I ask myself, “What is my highest purpose here? What’s the ultimate goal of this interaction?”

It’s never about winning.

---

Rich Fernandez:
(Laughing) Ilana, you know I might disagree with you on that one—I do love winning.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
I know! Rich loves to win—which is great!

But my highest goal isn’t to win. It’s to be of service. To find the best solution for everyone involved. Most of the time, that’s it—though of course it varies by situation.

But coming in with that intention really changes what the conversation feels like.

---

Rich Fernandez:
I should say—for those of you who know me: yes, I do love winning.

But I don’t love winning when it means winning over someone—especially when we’re in the same organization, working toward the same thing.

I love winning together. I love when we, as a team, win.

If you’re just a competitive lone operator, it sets up a dynamic that goes against everything we’ve been talking about. You’re not seeking to understand. You’re not even seeking to care—you’re just trying to “win” for yourself.

That, to me, has no place in real leadership.

Leadership is about: how do we win together?

Winning is a funny word. Really, it’s about fulfillment. About fulfilling the mission and the meaning of the work we’re doing.

And I trust that every team member has that same intent—they just come at it from different perspectives.

So knowing that, I want us all to win together.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
And I feel like this whole conversation—about how we see the word “win” differently—is a great example of what we’re talking about.

We have different perspectives. But we’re still able to engage in healthy dialogue, work together, and figure things out—even though at first I was like, “Ugh, Rich said something about winning!”

We’ve worked through that. We understand each other now. And we’re stronger for it.

---

Rich Fernandez:
Totally. And just a personal note—on our team, some of the quietest, most unassuming folks really come alive during trivia games or board games at off-sites.

You’d be surprised who’s got the fire to win. It’s always fun to see that side come out. It’s part of the team’s magic.

Ilana Robbins Gross:
All right, next question—and it’s a really good one, something I think about a lot:

“I love your motto: ‘Seek to understand rather than to fix.’ How do you do that while, as a leader, you also have strong opinions you want to drive forward? How do you keep your own desires and wishes in check? And how do you expand your capacity to understand? Do you have any tools for that?”

---

Rich Fernandez:
That’s a great question.

For years—at least a couple of decades now—my answer has been:
Meditation helps.

It really does.

I practice this skill of simply being aware every day. I have a regular meditation practice. It gives me a window into my own mental and emotional processes.

It’s a moment where I sit down—usually in the morning before I start my day—and just check in with myself. I notice. I observe. I’m not trying to fix anything.

That act of noticing—being an observer of my own experience—is my mental and emotional workout. So that when I’m in the field of play (which is the workday), and these things come up, I can take that “step back.” I observe. I notice. Then I choose how to respond.

So that’s one way I seek to understand: starting with emotional intelligence—specifically self-awareness and self-management.

If you're overwhelmed by your own thoughts and emotions, you won't have space to understand another person.

That’s why I said earlier: your personal emotional intelligence skills—your ability to manage yourself—are the point of departure for understanding others.

Now, this doesn’t mean pushing aside your own needs, feelings, or opinions. I often have strong opinions about things.

But I’m willing to listen. And I’m also willing to modify those opinions if I truly understand there’s something I missed.

Another thing I do is talk to a lot of people before making important decisions. Again, this isn’t about waffling or being indecisive. It’s about being curious—because I can’t think of everything. I can’t see every angle.

And I trust my team. Ilana, you’ve said to me, “I really think it’s the other way.” And I’ve said, “Okay, let’s explore that. Tell me why.” And sometimes, I’ve changed my mind—because you showed me something I didn’t see.

I had a strong opinion. It was well-reasoned. But yours was too. And I would’ve missed something important if I hadn’t asked.

So:

• Manage yourself.

• Be aware of your own logic and perspective.

• And just listen. Ask.

It never hurts to ask—because maybe you didn’t think of everything.

I also try to keep a growth mindset—or what we call a “beginner’s mind.” Just an openness to ideas.

As a leader, that’s really important—even if you think you already know the answer. You can still be open, right up until the moment you have to make a decision and take action.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yes—and I think it’s worth saying: we’ve had both versions of this between us over the years.

Sometimes I’ve disagreed, and you’ve listened and said, “Nope, I’m sticking with what I originally thought.”

And sometimes you’ve said, “That’s a great point—I’ve changed my perspective.”

Both have helped build trust between us. I know I can come to you with difficult things and tell you when I disagree. That makes us stronger.

Also, Rich, I think you model something really powerful for leaders. Often, we’re taught that leadership means being strong, being directive, having all the answers.

But I disagree with that. And I think you do too.

You’re exploring other ways of leading—ways that stand with strength, but also invite in different perspectives. That create belonging and inclusion through dialogue.

That’s the new model of leadership, in my view.

---

Rich Fernandez:
Yes—and yes and.

You can still be strong and directive. What matters is how you got there.

Did you get there by listening? By understanding? By building alignment?

That’s what matters.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Absolutely.

---

Rich Fernandez:
All right, I think we’ve got time for one more question before we wrap up. And this is a really important one:

“How do these models change in application when it comes to facilitating a group—like a team meeting—when conflict arises, especially with varying roles and hierarchies (CEO, director, manager, ICs) all involved?”

---

Rich Fernandez:
Yeah—great question.

I think the key here is that phrase: “when facilitating a group.” That’s the core of it.

If you're the facilitator, how do you set the tone? How do you frame the conversation so that it becomes an exploration and not an escalation?

I’ll give an example. I think it was Monday—feels like a week ago already—we had a leadership team meeting.

And I said, “I really would like to invite healthy debate about this. I really would like to invite healthy friction.”

That was the intention. And I said so, out loud: “Please—let’s have at it. Let’s hear all the perspectives. I know we’ve got different viewpoints around the table.”

It turned out to be a very lively meeting.

But I think what made it work was: setting the tone, and then maintaining it.

Even when you set the tone, things can go off the rails. People can get heated. That’s when it’s your job, as facilitator, to say: “Can we return to the frame we agreed to? Let’s go back to understanding each other.”

Keep leveling the conversation back to that tone of curiosity and mutual respect.

Now, when it comes to hierarchy—when there are different roles and power dynamics at play—that’s where you need to be extra thoughtful.

Sometimes the topic is difficult. It might be hard to speak up, depending on your place in the organization.

That’s why we do things like:

• Office hours

• Calendar invites for one-on-ones

• Anonymous surveys

We try to create multiple channels for people to safely share their perspective—whether in the meeting or after.

Simply naming that—that the hierarchy exists, and that you’re open to hearing from folks in different roles—goes a long way.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yes, yes, yes. I could talk about this one all day.

A few things to add.

First, as you said, it’s so important to create multiple ways for people to share. Depending on your role, you may not feel comfortable speaking up in front of everyone.

So ask yourself: are you sending out surveys afterward? Are they anonymous? Are you creating office hours? Are you actively creating that space?

But I actually think the most important thing is what happens over time.

Trust is built and broken over time.

Let’s say someone in a lower role raises a concern to someone in a higher role. That can be hard. But if they try—and then later they feel punished or shut down for it? That’s going to erode trust fast.

If, instead, they hear “Thank you so much—I appreciated your disagreement,” then that builds trust.

As a leader, your response in those moments matters. What you say and do when someone speaks up will determine whether they ever do it again.

And that’s not just about one meeting. It’s about every meeting that came before it.

So how can you show up in each of those moments to build that trust?

And it’s not just saying, “We invite healthy debate.” I’ve worked in places where that was said—but when someone spoke up, they were shut down.

So how do you genuinely build that over time?

As a leader, be aware of the hierarchy. People are watching you.

How are you responding?

And if you mess up—and we all do—how do you repair?

Because the moment isn’t lost forever.

Maybe next meeting, you say: “Hey, I didn’t respond well in that moment. I apologize.”

Or maybe it’s a one-on-one afterward.

But that repair matters. It builds trust. It creates safety for next time.

Rich Fernandez:
Exactly. And I just want to emphasize what you said, Ilana.

You might say, “We welcome healthy disagreement,” or “We want to hear dissenting voices”—but then how do you react when someone actually disagrees?

If you roll your eyes, if you move on quickly, if you get defensive—that tells everyone in the room what the real standard is.

You’re training the room, moment by moment.

So when you say, “We welcome different perspectives,” you have to show that. Not once—every time.

That’s what creates psychological safety. And that’s what allows people to bring their best thinking, even when it’s different or difficult.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Yes. Yes. Yes.

And just to say again: repair is possible. It’s never too late to go back and say, “I didn’t respond the way I wanted to. I see that.”

That builds trust too.

It says, “I care about this dynamic. I care about getting it right, not being right.”

It invites people back into the conversation.

---

Rich Fernandez:
Exactly. All right—we are almost at time, and this has been such a rich conversation.

Before we close, we want to say a huge thank you to all of you who joined. We’ve had folks here from all over the world—thank you for spending time with us.

Ilana, thank you for being such a thoughtful and insightful partner in this conversation. I always learn from you.

---

Ilana Robbins Gross:
Thank you, Rich. Same back to you.

And thank you to everyone who’s been here with us—this was truly one of my favorite conversations we’ve had.

---

Rich Fernandez:
For those of you who want to go deeper into this work, we have programs at SIY Global designed to build emotional intelligence in your teams and leaders.

You can visit siyglobal.com or reach out to us directly. We work with organizations all over the world—in many industries and cultures—and we’d love to explore what’s possible with you.

We also have public programs, facilitator trainings, and free resources on our site, so feel free to check that out.

Thanks again, everyone.

Be well. And be skillful in your conflicts.

Take care.