Boardroom effectiveness: Managing difference - Peter Crow

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:

Starting the meeting 60 minutes after the advertised time. This was a misread on my part: the hosts started at the advertised time, but not with the business meeting as I expected. There was a formal welcome and a light meal (culturally normal for the board, but not advised to me). Around 60 minutes the after we first assembled, the chair called the directors and visitors together, and the 'formal meeting' got underway.
A female board member seemingly ignored. In the West this would be uncommon; indeed it would be offensive for some. But it happened during a board observation in a highly patriarchal community setting. While the group seemed to be accommodating, the woman was present in body only; cultural norms prevented her from speaking or otherwise contributing in any meaningful way.
An entire group I was working with went silent on me. The group had been animated and engaged until they were asked a question that put them on the spot. Rather than engaging with the question, or expressing their discomfort at being asked, they simply sat and waited, and waited. After a minute or so, I asked for help. The group 'leader' said that, culturally, they preferred not to debate sensitive matters 'in public' (that is, with outsiders, such as me).

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:

Prepare ahead of time.
Read widely.
Ask for guidance.
Learn how to ask questions in a culturally safe manner.
Listen carefully, especially to what is not spoken.
Break bread together (gather socially, over a meal).
Travel together (to remote meetings).
Spend time in each other's company.

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 - 1 week ago

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?

I was lucky in my 25+ years as a company Secretary, as when approached the respective chairs saw the danger in this and invited me to also attend these dinners. Unless encourage to, I was the silent party in the room and didn’t express any views, but it gave me opportunity to provide a brief for the chair of things that needed to be addressed in the board the next day/month to ensure there were ‘on the record’ discussions of key issues. I had co sec friends in other organisations who were not afforded this opportunity and their role was seriously complicated keeping track on where and when key decisions were made.

Peter - 1 week ago

Thanks Richard, appreciate you commenting.

Your question about keeping the dinner informal is prescient, for these dinners can and do turn to topical matters from time to time. What I have seen done, and tended to do (when chair), is make plain the meeting is social and informal, and not a ‘pre-meeting’. If the discussion does move, that’s fine, so long as directors are conscious they are doing so and they stop well short of anything approaching a decision. But I would ask, is this situation any different from board-alone time, immediately prior to the meeting?

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.