Disagreements among professionals will always occur, but it's up to HR leaders to make sure their senior-level leaders -- and the workforce as a whole -- are prepared to communicate effectively with all levels of employees. And when an argument goes public, it's better to open up the lines of communication, rather than try to shut them down.

 By Katie Kuehner-Hebert

The recent flap over Gen. Stanley McChrystal's public denigration of his civilian superiors can serve as a teaching moment for the corporate world as well.

In the June 25 Rolling Stone profile, McChrystal professed skepticism of Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative to Afghanistan, while McChrystal's aides called National Security Adviser Jim Jones a "clown," and referred to Vice President Joe Biden as "Bite Me."

Those and other candid remarks about Obama's tenure as commander-in-chief resulted in McChrystal's resignation as the leader of the Afghanistan war and then, early retirement.

Communication experts are quick to point out that the high profile McChrystal drama provides many lessons for corporate human resource directors seeking to manage disputes within their own executive ranks.

"It's a classic management issue," says Kathryn Yates, practice leader in communication and change management consulting at Towers Watson in New York.

"On the one hand, disagreements among senior executives are a wonderful thing -- when allowed to happen productively and effectively," Yates says. "What makes it unhealthy is when it spills out into an inappropriate forum, or when it sounds more personal than it should."

Experts stress that HR directors should be proactive in minimizing inappropriate expressions of conflict within own their company's C-suite, by making sure healthy communication skills are explored during executive retreats and mentoring sessions for rising managers. Such communications strategies, in fact, should be part of the training sessions for all employees.

Executives and other employees alike need to be taught clear strategies for the best ways to handle not only larger disputes that involve the company's long-term direction, but also the day-to-day conflicts that can fester and stymie productivity, experts say.

And when conflicts do arise and are not handled appropriately between the parties, HR directors must be able to step in and help resolve the situation before it wreaks further havoc within the company.

Some executives might feel personally insulted when their HR director recommends communication-skills training to higher-level managers, says Frank Kenna, president of the Marlin Co., a Wallingford, Conn.-based firm that helps companies improve employee morale, productivity and performance.

"But HR people should not be intimidated by that, because executives need training in communication just as much -- if not more -- than anybody else in the company," Kenna says. "If executives make a communication mistake, it's likely to be much more magnified than the mistake that a lower-level employee could make."

One inappropriate mistake that executives should be encouraged to avoid is the "ambush" -- instead of talking privately with the person with whom the executive has a conflict, the executive waits until they are in a more public setting, such as a management meeting, and then brings up the issue in front of everyone, Kenna says.

"This makes everyone feel awkward and it makes the person being attacked very defensive, and then it's very hard to resolve the conflict," he says.

Instead, executives should be encouraged to address the person directly -- and early. "A small conflict is better to deal with than having a huge blow-up later on," Kenna says.

Peggy Klaus, president of Klaus and Associates, a Berkeley, Calif.-based communication and leadership coaching firm, says that she often teaches executives to avoid "triangulation" -- attempting to pit other executives against the person who has aggrieved them.

That practice creates cliques, which are counterproductive, and ultimately makes the executive responsible for starting the flap look unprofessional, Klaus says.

"Companies should have a policy encouraging employees to be up-front and open -- 'We want your honest, direct feedback.' --- and they should tolerate no gossip," Klaus says.

"But it has to be modeled from the top down, or else it will seep into the culture," she says.

When executives speak directly to the offending person, Klaus recommends they tamp down on their emotions by waiting at least 24 hours, if possible, after an incident to cool off. They should use "I" statements, stick to specific facts and eliminate blame.

Most importantly, she says, the executive should suggest solutions, and be willing to listen -- and in some cases, negotiate -- with the other person.

If either of the parties can't or won't talk to the other privately, then the HR director should meet with both to help resolve the issue.

In addition to encouraging the parties to use their communications skills, HR leaders should also determine whether the conflict may be impacting their co-workers or the company's clients, she says. HR should also suggest an appropriate timeline to negotiate solutions.

Towers Watson's Yates says that executives need to present a united front when leaving a meeting in which a controversial issue has been discussed. Executives should not tell their subordinates that they disagreed with the final decision; rather, they should let them know that there were several solutions discussed, but ultimately a final decision was made.

"If you're an employee and you hear about a disagreement between your boss and leaders of other departments, your boss is implicitly asking you to choose sides and that's not healthy," Yates says.

"Research has shown that employees have to feel like they're working at a company where their leaders trust each other, but if they have to choose sides, that's not good for the company's performance," she says.

Kenna says that, when an executive publicly denigrates his colleagues or superiors in the press or in social media, companies should not have a "knee-jerk" reaction and clam up,

"We always tell people to not shut down those lines of communication after a bad incident," he says "Actually, open the lines of communication and do so as often as you can."

HR directors can learn a thing or two about proactive communication from their marketing and public-relations colleagues within the company, Kenna says, pointing to Johnson & Johnson's handling of the tampering of its Tylenol bottles in the 1980s as one of the best examples on how a company can tackle a disastrous incident.

After several Chicago people died from taking Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules laced with cyanide, Johnson & Johnson immediately told the public to stop buying their product, recalled all Tylenol capsules from stores, offered to exchange bottles already bought and worked with law enforcement to find the culprit -- all of which earned the company praise from the media for being socially responsible.

Then, Johnson & Johnson introduced tamper-proof bottles in conjunction with launching a massive new advertising campaign, and Tylenol regained its top market position.

"This was the textbook version on how to handle a crisis," Kenna says. "We always tell our clients, you get a lot of lessons from advertising and public relations."