I was on-site with a client to facilitate their leadership retreat. This included a morning session with the broader leadership team, a smaller executive session before lunch, and a 1:1 meeting with the owner before I flew home.
In the short gap between morning sessions, one of the leaders pulled me aside: “Can I talk to you? It’s really important.”
They told me they felt excluded at the agency—that they should be part of the executive team. They’d turned down another job to join this agency and help the owner, and now they felt sidelined.
I asked, “Have you talked to the owner about this?” No. They didn’t want to bother him.
“Have you talked to your direct boss?” Also no.
Then they broke down. At that point, I did what I could in the moment. I said, “I can’t promise any particular outcome, but it would help to know what you’re trying to accomplish. What’s your ideal outcome here?”
They said they… didn’t know. I gave them my card and asked them to email me after they’d thought about it.
Nearly a decade later? They never emailed me.
That’s triangulation in a nutshell: trying to solve a two-person problem by pulling in a third person—often because the real conversation feels uncomfortable.
And here’s the key detail: In that moment, they weren’t asking for advice. They were asking me to be the referee. But refereeing is a trap: it feels helpful, and it quietly teaches everyone to avoid the real conversation.
If you’ve ever had a leader DM you about someone else “just to keep you in the loop,” or corner you between meetings with something “really important,” you’ve been there. Once leaders learn you’re the fastest path to relief, you become the default path—even when you’re not the right one.
Let’s fix that.
What triangulation is (and what it isn’t)
Triangulation is when Person A talks to Person C about a problem with Person B, instead of addressing Person B directly.
It often shows up like this:
- “Just FYI, I’m concerned about how X is handling…”
- “I don’t want to make it a thing, but…”
- “Can you talk to them? They don’t listen to me.”
- I’m not complaining, I just want you to know…”
Some of those are legitimate signals. Many are not.
Not all “talking about someone” is toxic
You don’t want to ban all one-on-one conversations about a third party. Sometimes leaders need coaching, context checks, or a safety valve. But here’s the distinction.
Healthy:
- “I want coaching on how to bring this up directly.”
- “This could create client risk—what’s the right escalation path?”
- “We’re stuck and need you to facilitate a decision.”
Unhealthy:
- Repeated venting with no intent to address it directly
- Recruiting you as an ally (“Can you tell them…”)
- Using you to override the other leader without a direct conversation
- Creating an offstage narrative that never gets resolved onstage
In other words: you can be a coach or a facilitator. But you should not be the message relay.
Why triangulation spikes when you add a new leader
Triangulation exists at every size. But it tends to increase during leadership expansion because three things happen at once.
1) Roles aren’t internalized yet
Even if you wrote a job description, people still don’t fully know what the new leader owns, what the incumbent leader still owns, or what now escalates to the owner.
Ambiguity creates friction. Friction creates venting. Venting creates triangulation.
2) The incumbent leader may feel threatened
Sometimes the incumbent becomes overly critical, obstructive, vague (“this won’t work”), or hesitant to share concerns directly.
That’s often fear and identity loss, not malice. But regardless of motive, it pushes conflict upward—toward you.
This can even happen when the current leader had asked more help. They wanted to share the workload, but suddenly it’s real.
3) The new leader lacks relationship capital
If the new leader is remote—or has never met you or their peers in person—misreads happen faster. People assume negative intent because they don’t have a history of positive experiences to counterbalance annoyances.
And as leadership teams grow, you get more potential communication paths (and more opportunities for disconnects).
The hidden costs of being the referee
At first, being the referee can feel like leadership. You’re keeping things calm, preventing conflict, and “protecting the team.”
But what you’re actually doing is building dependency.
Time cost: your calendar becomes conflict processing
You didn’t hire leaders so you could spend your week listening to leaders complain about other leaders.
Authority cost: leaders don’t learn to work peer-to-peer
If they can bypass each other by escalating to you, they will.
Culture cost: it spreads
Staff notice. They start managing upward too. Soon you have passive-aggressive posts on Slack or Teams, “just checking” DMs, and leaders forming factions without realizing it.
Client risk: decisions slow and signals get mixed
Triangulation delays decisions and increases the odds that someone will pass on contested information to the client.
At some point, clients wonder why your agency isn’t on the same page internally.
The anti-triangulation operating system
You don’t solve triangulation with a speech. You solve it with default behaviors and consistent responses.
Here’s the system.
Step 1: Set the rule and the purpose
You need one clear, repeatable principle: “I’m happy to coach you, but I won’t talk to them for you.”
And one clear purpose: “I want leaders solving issues directly, so decisions happen faster, and the agency doesn’t depend on me to function.”
This is not about avoiding tough conversations. It’s about creating conditions where tough conversations can actually happen—and lead somewhere.
Step 2: Use “redirect” scripts in the moment
The key is to stop improvising. Triangulation thrives when you respond differently every time, and you use that as an excuse to avoid decisive action.
Use these scripts.
Script A: The first redirect
Ask: “What did you say to them?” and “When will you bring it to them?”
If they haven’t spoken directly, that’s the next step.
Script B: Coaching mode (the healthy version)
Ask: “Do you want help planning how to say it?” or “What outcome do you want from the conversation?”
This keeps you helpful without becoming the intermediary.
Script C: Escalation gate (separating friction from decisions)
Ask: “Is this a ‘who’s in charge’ question, or relationship friction?” or “What specifically do you need from me?”
Most “issues” are actually one of these: 1) It’s unclear who owns a decision, or 2) Someone is annoyed but avoiding an uncomfortable conversation.
The symptoms might sound similar—but they require different fixes. I share more about the two most common root causes below.
Script D: The facilitation option (when it’s truly stuck)
Say: “If it’s high stakes or you’re stuck, I’ll facilitate—but you two lead the conversation.”
That last clause matters. You’re not taking over. You’re creating a container where they can move forward.
Step 3: Require a direct conversation loop
This is the single most effective triangulation-stopper I’ve seen.
Create a new norm
If someone brings you an issue with another leader, they must:
- Tell you what they’re going to say to the other person
- Schedule the conversation (or tell you when it’s happening)
- Report back what they decided (in one sentence)
This does two things:
- It moves the issue out of the shadow channel and into the working channel.
- It trains leaders that escalation is not a substitute for accountability.
If they can’t resolve it within a reasonable timebox—say, one week—you do a three-person reset meeting.
That meeting isn’t about litigation—it’s to decide what’s true, who’s responsible for what, what happens next, and how to prevent this situation in the future.
Prevent triangulation by removing the ambiguity that causes it
Triangulation is often the symptom. But things like leadership vacuums—and other ambiguity—are the fuel.
Two fixes matter most: decisionmaking responsibility and meeting ownership.
Clarify decisionmaking responsibility (aka “decision rights”) before people start lobbying
Create three buckets:
- New leader decides
- Owner decides
- Joint decision (rare; define criteria)
Then pre-decide common situations that would trigger needing to clarify who’s in charge:
- Out-of-scope / out-of-hours client communication
- Staffing changes on key accounts
- Discounts / write-offs
- Who is the primary client contact during transitions
If you don’t do this, leaders will lobby you because they don’t know what else to do.
Make meeting ownership explicit
“Who runs the meeting” isn’t just “who talks first.” It usually includes setting the agenda, inviting the right people, assigning follow-ups, distributing post-meeting updates, and enforcing follow-through.
When meeting ownership is unclear, you’ll often see two dysfunctional behaviors:
- Leaders inviting extra people “just in case” (which wastes time and creates confusion)
- Leaders re-litigating decisions live, because nobody knows who can decide (which wastes more time)
These often create more triangulation.
Address the two most common root causes directly
If triangulation has become a chronic problem at your agency, you usually have one (or both) of these.
Root cause #1: The incumbent leader is fearful (and acting it out)
You may see vague blocking (“this won’t work”), derailment, overcritical feedback, or withholding feedback until later.
Don’t jump in too soon—but don’t ignore it either. Have the conversation.
Here’s what to say (tone: calm, direct):
- “Your role is changing, and I know that can feel threatening.”
- “This is not about replacing you; it’s about redistributing ownership.”
- “I need you to support the role transition; if you have concerns, please raise them directly.”
- “If you think something won’t work, tell us what would make it workable.”
Also: consequences aren’t threats. They’re boundaries. Importantly, if someone cannot operate as a peer leader, they aren’t a fit for a peer leadership team.
Keep in mind that you might realize the current leader is no longer a match—either because they won’t work well with a new person or because they no longer meet your new standards. Either way, address it directly. Don’t let things fester.
Root cause #2: The new leader lacks relationship capital
When leaders don’t know each other, they sometimes assume ill intent because they’re annoyed.
If they’re remote and haven’t met in person, expect more friction. That’s not pessimism; it’s normal human behavior.
Create relationship capital intentionally: structured 1:1s between the two leaders and a neutral-location meetup with explicit goals (planning + getting to know each other).
You’re not forcing friendship—but you are making collaboration easier.
When you should not force peer-to-peer resolution
There are times when “talk to each other” is not the right move.
Do not push peer resolution when:
- It’s a true HR issue (harassment, discrimination, safety, or other internal investigation).
- It’s an ethical or legal risk.
- It’s a performance issue that requires management action from the person’s boss (i.e., you or a colleague).
- One leader lacks real authority and you haven’t established decisionmaking roles yet.
In those cases, your job is to intervene—not to “coach them through it.”
Troubleshooting: What to do when the scripts don’t work
Here are some common challenges I see in my work as an agency advisor.
Problem: “They keep coming to me anyway”
You’re still rewarding it—usually with speed, attention, or emotional validation.
Solution: Slow your response. Repeat the script. Require the direct conversation loop.
Consistency beats intensity.
Problem: “They talked, but nothing changed”
The conversation didn’t produce a decision or an owner.
Solution: Ask questions like, “What did you decide?” and “Who owns the next step?” and “By when?”
If the meeting has no output, the conflict will return to your inbox.
Problem: “One leader refuses to address it directly”
At that point, this isn’t a communication issue. It’s a leadership performance issue.
Solution: Set the expectation formally. Coach once. Escalate to consequences if it persists.
If someone can’t have peer conversations, they can’t be a peer leader.
What you unlock when you stop (or reduce) triangulation
When you remove triangulation from your agency, you’ll see compounding benefits:
- Leaders stop lobbying and start collaborating.
- Decisions speed up.
- Meetings shrink.
- Your role moves from referee to executive leader.
- The agency becomes more resilient because it doesn’t depend on you to resolve ambiguity.
And if you’re aiming for scale or exit readiness, that resilience isn’t optional—it’s a valuation driver.
Misalignment is another major drag factor; triangulation often coexists with it, because both thrive in ambiguity and avoidance.
For more, see my other articles on leadership alignment—and the importance of having an independent #2.
Does this problem sound familiar?
If this feels familiar, you may not have a people problem—you may have a design problem. The most expensive leadership issues in agencies often come from things nobody formally designed: decision rights, role boundaries, escalation paths, and what “good” looks like for each leader.
That’s what the Agency Value Audit (AVA) is built to uncover. AVA gives you a clear, data-informed snapshot of where the agency is strong, where it’s straining, and where leadership alignment (or misalignment) is hurting the business. Plus, you’ll get a custom roadmap for what to prioritize next. From there, many owners continue with ongoing support—either Executive Advisory (for owners + execs) or Agency Growth Coaching—to implement the changes and keep the leadership team aligned as complexity grows.
Want to fix this, so you can increase agency enterprise value and reduce owner dependence? Please get in touch and I’ll confirm if we’re a match to work together.
QUESTION: What’s your next step to stop being the agency referee?
