Chair Series 5: Handling Conflict Around the Board Table

Every board I have ever sat on has had a meeting that went sideways. And pretty often it was not the current issue on the agenda that did it. Conflict is often something with its roots beyond the discussion. In my experience it’s been a louder-than-it-needed-to-be sigh, or a comment/joke that was poorly worded and landed wrong, or even a mistimed smile that was taken out of context. There are genuine disagreements that can and SHOULD happen around the board table but when the conflict moves beyond the issue, there can be a real threat to the cohesion of a board. Many organizations have been greatly harmed by board conflict.   

Conflict is inevitable when capable people care about the mission. But conflict isn’t inherently bad, essentially anytime someone disagrees with another, that’s conflict. And good boards disagree. They disagree all the time. About priorities and risk, where to focus resources, and what the future should look like. They should disagree, there should be constructive criticism, there should be hard questions. A big part of the chair’s job is to turn that energy into better decisions while stopping the behaviours that damage trust. Weaving disagreement into consensus while preventing harmful conflict.

Name the type of conflict

Not all conflict is the same, and not all conflict is bad. At its best, conflict is what any good board, organization, or team should want, conflict that focuses on the issues and makes things better. At its worst, it can tear apart organizations.

There are (very) broadly, two kinds of conflict:

• Task conflict: generally positive and focused on ideas, options, process, outcomes, and other issues directly tied to a decision
• Interpersonal conflict: negative and rooted in personalities, grievances, dislike, attitude, and other personal issues usually wholly unrelated to a task at hand

If you identify conflict or budding conflict, your move as chair is to figure out which kind you are dealing with. The two call for pretty different responses. Task conflict usually needs shaping rather than stopping: that is, directing it in the most helpful way such as clearly naming the competing options, consider them against universally agreed criteria, and let the disagreement run until it produces a decision. Interpersonal conflict needs containing: take it off the table in front of everyone, then deal with it privately and afterwards. Pressing it in the room can harden positions and gives the behaviour an audience. The wrong intervention can make things worse either way, shutting down an argument the board needed, or letting a personal one play out in public.

Setting and promoting norms

A board will develop a culture of its own if you aren’t deliberate about it, and promoting a strong culture related to conflict is important. Do things the create an environment where conflict is welcomed, but that interpersonal conflict will not be tolerated. Make things easy and clear for everyone. Here are some things to help before discussions start:

• Have a clear agenda and the right information sent. Ambiguity and a lack of understanding of issues can lead to problems
• Implement a tool like Guru’s Rules that help to clarify what I expected of board members and sets meeting standards
• Present a short norms statement at the start of meetings that describes expectations including around focusing on the issue at hand
• In particular, ensure everyone know that they are expected and welcomed to ask hard questions and criticize, as long as its focused on the issue, and that people will act in good faith and assume good faith in others
• If possible, meet with every director annually to get to know them and to better understand what they bring to the board
• The board chair also needs to lead by example, utilizing their power in the best interests of informed, rational, and compliant decision making, and in line with the board norms.

Engaging

Norms and preparation do their work before the meeting starts. Once conflict is in the room there is nothing left to reach back for, and it falls to the chair to address it live. Should discussion be turning sideways, it is important for the chair to be ready to take control. Disagreement, even heated disagreement can and usually is extremely useful. But at the point when the chair feels the current discussion s more harmful than beneficial, or more about the individuals than the issue, they need to take back the meeting. What does this look like in practice?

Getting to know your board members will help you to pick up earlier on signs  that could be leading to harmful conflict. Directing conversation in a way that highlights the agreements is important, as is being very sensitive to criticisms addressed towards people rather then the issue or task. But also ensuring that discussion is robust and people are not avoiding conflict that would be helpful.

While there are infinite potential cause of conflict, addressing it at meetings can often call for responses that can be used across situations. Here are some of the most diplomatic and defusing that I have come across. I’m sure you can come up with situations you’ve seen where each response could be used:

• I want to make sure I have this right before we go further. Can you put your concern in one sentence?
• That is a fair challenge. Let us aim it at the proposal rather than at each other
• We are moving into personal territory. We need to bring this back to the question in front of the board
• I am hearing some strong views, let’s keep them focused on the topic at hand
• It is time for us to take a short break – which may be for 30 seconds or fifteen minutes

When the issue is behaviour

If a director interrupts, grandstands, or undermines decisions after they have been made, that is no longer a disagreement. It is a governance issue, and it needs to be handled like one.

• Pause the meeting and remind them of expectations
• If the behaviour continues, take a brief recess and speak with the director privately
• After the meeting, document the concern and bring it to the governance committee
• Use the code of conduct and sanctions process if you need to

As the chair you have limited ability to act on your own, but it will be your responsibility to lead or ensure leadership in dealing with the issue. Consistency protects culture and it signals that the standards apply to everyone, including, or especially, the loudest person in the room.

What you do after the meeting matters as much as the intervention itself. Speak with the director whose behaviour you named, and with anyone who was on the receiving end of it, before the next meeting rather than at it. A short private call repairs more than anything you can put in the minutes, and it keeps one bad meeting from becoming the way the board sees itself.

Bottom line

Your aim is not harmony at all costs. Harmony is not necessarily synonymous with good governance. What you want is robust, respectful deliberation that leads to clear decisions, and a board where directors leave the meeting still willing to pick up each other’s calls. Structure, norms, and good chairing are how you get there. These turn conflict into value.