A senior Saudi CFO had the data. He had the analysis. He had the right answer. The COO would not move. After two years of frustration, one conversation changed everything. It was not about finance.
The CFO was widely respected inside the group. He had built the function from scratch, modernised the reporting, and run the company through a successful capital raise. Inside the executive committee, his analyses were precise and his recommendations were almost always adopted.
Almost always. There was one exception, and it had been an exception for two years. The COO was running an operations footprint that, on the CFO's numbers, was twenty percent more capital-intensive than peers. The CFO had put the analysis in front of the COO three times. Each time the response was polite, professional, and immovable.
The CFO came to coaching with a question: "How do I get him to take this seriously?"
The question itself was the problem.
The frame the CFO was using
The CFO had been operating, for two years, inside a frame he had not noticed. The frame was: I have the right answer. The COO is wrong. My job is to make him understand.
Inside that frame, every conversation was structured as a presentation. Slides. Numbers. Comparable benchmarks. The CFO would walk in, deliver the case, and walk out frustrated when the COO did not respond.
The frame was rigorous, polite, and completely closed. There was no door for the COO to walk through that did not require him to publicly accept that the CFO was right and he was wrong. So the COO did the rational thing. He nodded, thanked the CFO for the analysis, and continued.
This is the most common pattern in cross-functional senior conflict. The leader who has the data assumes the data should be enough. It almost never is.
What we worked on
We did not work on the analysis. The analysis was correct.
We worked on the frame. Specifically, three shifts.
Shift 1: Stop making the COO wrong. The CFO's slides had implicit blame inside them. Every comparable was a peer who was doing it better than the COO. From the COO's seat, the room was an interrogation. We rebuilt the framing. The benchmark was not "peers are better." It was "the market is moving. We need to make a call together about whether we move with it or hold our position deliberately."
Shift 2: Surface the COO's constraint. The CFO had never asked, in a sustained way, what the COO's actual constraint was. He had assumed the COO was protecting status, or operational complexity, or just being defensive. We coached him to spend one full conversation, without a deck, asking what the COO was holding. The COO said, in that conversation, that two years earlier he had been told personally by the chairman to maintain a particular operational footprint for strategic reasons that had not been written down. The COO had been protecting a chairman commitment the CFO did not know existed.
Shift 3: Co-author the recommendation. The CFO went into the next executive committee meeting with a different posture. Instead of presenting his answer, he presented a question: "Given the chairman's commitment two years ago and the market shift since then, what should we recommend to him as a board?" The COO became a co-author of the recommendation rather than the target of it. Within four weeks, they jointly took a revised proposal to the chairman. It was approved.
What changed for the CFO
The decision moved. That mattered for the company.
What mattered more for the CFO was that the dynamic with the COO changed. They began collaborating on a second initiative within the quarter. The CFO described it later as the first time, in two years, that he had felt like a peer rather than a salesperson.
This is the lesson that most senior leaders learn slowly, often after years of avoidable friction: peer influence is not a function of being right. It is a function of giving the other leader a way to engage that does not require them to lose.
The pattern across senior coaching engagements
This pattern repeats. The CFO who cannot move the COO. The Chief Marketing Officer who cannot move the Chief Sales Officer. The Chief Compliance Officer who cannot move the Chief Investment Officer. The Head of Strategy who cannot move the regional GMs.
The data is usually correct. The frame is the problem.
Inside an executive coaching engagement, the work to fix this is structural. We map the peer relationships. We surface the unspoken constraints. We rebuild the frames the leader is using inside conversations they did not realise they were running on autopilot. The technique generalises to every cross-functional relationship the leader has, which is why one engagement often produces three or four unblocked initiatives across a CFO's portfolio.
Three questions for any senior leader stuck on a peer
If you have a peer you have not been able to move on something important, before the next meeting, sit with these:
- In my framing, does this leader have to lose for me to win?
- What is the constraint they are holding that I have not asked about?
- Could we co-author the recommendation, or am I asking them to ratify mine?
Most senior peer conflicts come unstuck behind one of those questions. The two-year stall the CFO was carrying was sitting behind the second one, hidden in plain sight.
The bottom line
Senior leaders who cannot influence their peers do not need better arguments. They need better frames. The frames are coachable. The arguments, by the time the leader has reached the C-suite, almost never were the problem.
For more on the broader skill, see Lateral Leadership: The C-Suite Skill Nobody Teaches.
---
Begin a confidential conversation. Schedule a discovery session
FAQ
Why is influencing a peer harder than influencing a direct report? A peer has no obligation to act on your input. They have their own boss, their own targets, and their own logic. Influence has to replace authority, and influence requires giving the peer a path to engage that does not require them to publicly lose.
What is the most common mistake senior leaders make in peer influence? Assuming that being right is enough. Most senior peer conflicts are framed implicitly as "I am right, you are wrong, accept my answer." That framing closes the conversation regardless of how strong the analysis is.
How quickly can peer relationships shift? Often within weeks. The change is rarely about the relationship. It is about the frame the leader is using inside the relationship. Once the frame shifts, the dynamic shifts, often faster than the leader expects.