How Should a General Manager Handle a Culture Issue Between Two Department Heads?

When two department heads are locked in a conflict that's bleeding into team morale and workflow, your first move is a private conversation with each person separately to understand the root cause—not just the surface complaint—before you ever consider a joint meeting. Most culture clashes between leaders stem from competing priorities, unclear decision rights, or unspoken resentments that have calcified over months. As the general manager, you own the responsibility to surface what's actually broken, reset expectations, and hold both parties accountable to a shared standard of professional conduct. The goal isn't to pick a winner; it's to restore functional collaboration and model the behavior you expect from everyone else on your team.

Diagnose the real problem, not the symptom

You know that moment when a culture issue between two department heads lands on your desk,usually delivered by a third party, often wrapped in vague language like "they're not getting along" or "there's been tension." That's not a diagnosis. That's a smoke signal.

Your first instinct should be to get curious, not defensive. Pull each department head into a private office separately. Don't accuse or assume. Ask open questions:

• What's been frustrating you about working with [the other person]?
• When did you first notice this relationship deteriorating?
• What specific situation made you feel unheard or disrespected?
• What would need to change for you to feel like you're on the same team again?

Listen for patterns. Are they fighting over territory,like the service director and parts manager disagreeing about which ROs get priority for parts allocation? Are they competing for budget? Do they have fundamentally different interpretations of what their job requires? Is one person making unilateral decisions that affect the other's workflow without consultation?

A typical example: Your finance manager and sales manager are at odds. The F&I manager wants every desk to run menus and hit bureau pulls before the customer steps off the lot. The sales manager thinks that's slowing down delivery times and making the customer experience feel transactional. Neither is wrong in isolation. But their misalignment is creating a culture problem because the sales team doesn't know whose standard to follow, and the tension is palpable in the showroom.

The real issue often isn't personal animosity,it's unclear authority, competing metrics, or a process that forces them into conflict. Once you know what you're actually dealing with, you can fix it.

Establish that this is a professional standard issue, not a personality clash

Here's an opinion I'm willing to plant a flag on: a lot of general managers treat culture issues between leaders as if they're interpersonal drama, when they're actually performance problems. Reframe that immediately in your own mind.

When two department heads aren't collaborating effectively, that's a breach of the professional standard you've set for your dealership. It's not about whether they like each other. It's about whether they can execute their roles in a way that serves the business and the teams below them.

In your follow-up conversations, be direct about that standard:

"I've heard that there's been friction between you and [the other person]. That's a problem,not because I need you to be best friends, but because when leadership isn't aligned, it creates confusion and waste downstream. Part of your job is to partner professionally with your peers. I need to understand what's broken so we can fix it together."

This framing does three things:

1. It removes shame and makes the conversation about business, not personality.
2. It establishes that you expect collaboration as a non-negotiable part of their role.
3. It signals that you're not here to blame one person; you're here to solve a system problem.

Stores that get this right tend to move past the blame cycle faster because the conversation stops being about who's at fault and starts being about what needs to change operationally.

Clarify decision rights and overlapping responsibilities

Most culture issues between department heads are really about fuzzy boundaries. Who decides what happens when two priorities conflict? If the service director and the fixed operations manager disagree about whether to double-book technicians on a Saturday, whose call is it? If the BDC manager and the sales manager have different definitions of a "qualified lead," who sets the standard?

This is where a lot of general managers drop the ball. They mediate the conflict but never actually resolve the underlying structural problem. Then six weeks later, the same two people are in conflict again over a different decision.

In your sit-down with each department head, ask:

• Where do you have clear authority to make decisions without checking with the other person?
• Where do you feel like your decisions get overridden?
• What decisions should you two be making together?
• Where does it feel ambiguous who's in charge?

Then document it. Create a simple one-page RACI or decision matrix,nothing fancy. For example:

• Service scheduling: Service director owns it. Fixed ops manager consents before extreme changes.
• Technician hiring: Service director recommends, fixed ops manager approves.
• Parts budgeting: Parts manager owns it. Service director consulted.
• Premium service menu pricing: F&I manager and service director decide together.

This kind of clarity prevents a shocking amount of future conflict. When people know exactly where their authority ends and someone else's begins, they stop fighting about jurisdiction and start focusing on execution.

Have the joint conversation with clear rules of engagement

Only bring them together once you've diagnosed the issue and clarified decision rights. Never wing a three-way conversation. It almost always becomes a blame session.

When you do bring them in the same room, set the frame before they sit down:

"I've talked to each of you separately, and I understand the frustration. I also understand where the wires got crossed operationally. Here's what's going to happen: I'm going to talk, then each of you gets to share your perspective without interruption, then we're going to agree on what changes. This isn't about who was right or wrong. It's about how we move forward as a team."

Walk them through what you've learned. Be specific about the impact on the business or the teams below them. Then, this is important: give them each five uninterrupted minutes to respond. No cross-talk. No defensiveness. Just say what happened from your perspective.

Then ask them directly: "What do you need from [the other person] to make this work?"

Often, when people feel truly heard and when the conversation isn't framed as a trial, they soften. They're willing to acknowledge their own role. They can move toward solutions.

Document what you agree to. Not a formal contract,just an email recap: "Here's what we discussed. Here's what we're committing to. Here's when we check back in."

Set accountability metrics and follow up

The conversation itself doesn't fix anything. What fixes it is your willingness to hold both people accountable to the standards you just set.

In the week after the joint meeting, watch for backsliding. Are they still looping in each other on decisions? Are they still speaking poorly about each other to their teams? Are they executing the agreement?

If they are, acknowledge it. "I've noticed you two coordinating on the schedule change before it goes live. That's exactly what I need to see."

If they're not, address it immediately,privately, with the person who dropped the ball. "We agreed you'd check with [the other person] before making changes to [X]. I saw that didn't happen on [date]. I need it to happen. What's in the way?"

Build a follow-up conversation into your calendar for 30 days out. Sit with both of them together and ask: "How's the partnership working? What's better? What still needs attention?"

This is the kind of workflow Dealer1 Solutions was built to handle,not the mediation itself, but the follow-up accountability. When your team is using shared tools, shared calendars, and shared data, it's harder for department heads to operate in silos or claim miscommunication. Transparency is a culture corrective.

Watch for patterns that signal a larger management problem

If you find yourself mediating between the same two people repeatedly, or if culture issues are breaking out across multiple departments, that's a signal that something is wrong with your leadership structure or your clarity as a general manager.

Ask yourself:

• Am I being clear about dealership priorities, or are people fighting to guess what matters?
• Do my department heads have the authority they need to do their jobs, or are they constantly checking with me?
• Am I modeling the collaborative behavior I expect, or am I playing favorites?
• Is the compensation structure pitting people against each other? (e.g., if the service director's bonus is based on hours per RO and the fixed ops manager's is based on CSI, they're going to collide on every trade-off.)
• Have I been clear about what "being a team" actually means at this dealership?

Culture issues between leaders are often a mirror. They reflect ambiguity, misalignment, or unclear expectations from the top. Fix those, and you prevent a lot of future friction.

Know when to escalate or make a change

Sometimes, after you've done all of this work,diagnosed the issue, clarified decision rights, had the conversation, set accountability,one or both people still won't collaborate. They drag their feet. They undermine the agreement. They poison the culture by talking behind the other person's back.

That's a character problem, not a communication problem. And at that point, you have to be willing to make a change.

This is hard. People become comfortable in their roles. You might worry about losing someone with deep product knowledge or a long tenure. But a department head who can't work collaboratively with their peers is a net drag on your business. They're creating work for you, demoralizing their team, and modeling poor behavior for everyone else.

If you've given people clear expectations, diagnosed the real issue, reset the structure, and they still choose not to collaborate, moving them is often the kindest and clearest thing you can do,for them and for your dealership.

Frequently asked questions

Should I take sides when two department heads are in conflict?

No. Your job is to diagnose the real issue, clarify decision rights, and hold both people accountable to a professional standard of collaboration. Taking sides signals to the rest of your team that you play favorites, which erodes trust and makes people reluctant to bring problems to you. Stay neutral on personality and firm on behavior.

What if one department head refuses to participate in a joint meeting?

That's a refusal to meet a professional expectation. Address it directly: "I need you in a meeting with me and [the other person] on [date] to resolve this. This is a requirement of your role, not a request." If they still refuse, that's grounds for a performance conversation about whether they're the right fit for a leadership position in your dealership.

How do I prevent culture issues between leaders from happening in the first place?

Be crystal clear about decision rights, priorities, and what collaboration looks like at your dealership. Make it explicit in job descriptions, in onboarding, and in regular one-on-ones. Model the behavior yourself. Use systems and tools that encourage transparency and information-sharing so people aren't operating in silos. And regularly ask your teams: "How is the leadership team working together from your perspective?"

What if the culture issue is rooted in a personality conflict that existed before both people worked at my dealership?

Personality matters less than you think. Even if two people don't naturally click, they can work together professionally if the role, the expectations, and the decision rights are clear. Focus on behavior and outcomes, not feelings. That said, if a personality conflict is so strong that it's preventing execution even after you've done the structural work, you may need to separate them,different shifts, different report structures, or a change in assignment.

How do I explain to the rest of my leadership team why I'm addressing an issue between two department heads?

You don't need to explain the details. But you can be transparent about the standard: "I'm committed to making sure our leadership team collaborates effectively. That means I'm going to address any gaps in alignment quickly and directly. I expect that from myself and from all of you." This reinforces the culture you're building and signals that you take collaboration seriously.

Should I be worried if two department heads tell me different stories about what went wrong?

Not necessarily. People experience conflict differently. One person remembers a specific incident as a betrayal; the other barely remembers it. What matters is that you've heard both sides, you understand the operational impact, and you're clear about the standard going forward. Don't get trapped in debating whose version is "true." Focus on what needs to change.