In recent times, diversity, equity and inclusion (often, DEI) has become topical in many spheres of business, social, organisational and political life, and boardrooms are no exception. The moot is that increased in-group diversity directly enhances organisational (project, team) performance. While this remains unproven, expectations are running high, and there are no signs they are abating. With this development, tensions have become apparent: between those people and groups who argue that demographic diversity is material to better outcomes, and those who do not; those who assert that boards should be representative of the shareholders or communities they serve, and those who prefer the best governors in the room, regardless of representation, to ensure the best decisions are made. These tensions, and the underlying complexities extant both within an organisation and in the wider marketplace, are real. Boards ignore them (or discount or run roughshod over them) at their peril. Difference needs to be acknowledged and harnessed, to draw out multiple perspectives. But directors need to be sufficiently mature and wise to also align their efforts, to ensure great decisions are made having taken various contextual factors into account. This is hard, not only because directors need to find common ground where little may exist, but also because cultural differences tend to run deep and they may be difficult to navigate. Seemingly straightforward matters are almost guaranteed to become difficult if cultural norms are ignored or brushed over. Consider these cultural scenarios, all of which I have experienced over the past twelve months:
When working across cultures, seek first to understand. Breathe. Invest time and effort to learn how others think; what drives them; how they feel; how their mind works; how decisions are made; and whatever else seems relevant. And, what is more:
The group leader (board chair) has an incredibly important role in this, to draw everyone into the conversation; acknowledge difference, but harness it for the common good. Finally, a note: The techniques listed here are simply suggestions. But, in my experience, they can be incredibly powerful catalysts upon which relationships can develop and trust can be built. Ultimately, if boards are to have any hope of governing with impact, a sound understanding of 'who' is in the room, and 'how' they think, act and contribute is necessary. Invest time and effort, it'll pay off.
3 Comments
Richard Curtis
7/9/2024 21:14:58
Peter, very often ‘board dinners’ are held with the stated objective of building relationships between directors (your ‘breaking bread’), but how do you keep these sessions informal and avoid the strategic discussion that should be taking place in the boardroom?
Reply
Peter
8/9/2024 06:55:19
Thanks Richard, appreciate you commenting.
Reply
Richard Curtis
8/9/2024 07:34:58
Hi Peter, I take your point. I was fortunate enough to attend pre board meetings, including NED only meetings (except where the chair asked me not to). I missed very few. The benefit of attending these private sessions was that it built my relationship with NEDs individually, as well as collectively. This was especially valuable when there was a time of stress - a competitive takeover bid. But it needed a strong chair to decide when I should/not attend. Leave a Reply. |
SearchMusingsThoughts on corporate governance, strategy and boardcraft; our place in the world; and other topics that catch my attention. Categories
All
Archives
September 2024
|