Any board member who experiences enriching board meetings may talk about having had a great 'debate'. Well, perhaps. Strictly defined, however, a debate is a contest with participants pitching two opposing and irreconcilable positions against each other. The result is a win for one side and a loss for the other. These are not characteristics of a productive and satisfying board meeting.
So, what has happened in those particularly satisfying board meetings is not debate. It is most likely to have been a distinctly different mode of discourse, widely known as 'dialogue'. Dialogue involves deep, honest, inclusive, and respectful interaction among participants. It starts from the expectation that board members will bring different ways of seeing things and that they will engage in a way that leads to a more thorough understanding of those differences. And, as a consequence, board member engagement will lead to better decision-making.
Typically, definitions of dialogue describe it as '…shared inquiry, a way of thinking and reflecting together.' Dialogue seeks to harness the 'collective intelligence' of a group such that together, its members are more aware and smarter than they are on their own. (Isaacs, 1999, 11)
Dialogue has numerous advantages over debate for boards. This type of communication:
No matter what we call the process that produces these benefits, unless board members feel heard and engaged, and if their knowledge and concerns are not considered, all bets are off. Any agreements the board makes will not be lasting, and successful implementation of any plans on which those agreements are based, unlikely.
An organisation's mission must include effective communication between its board members. This means creating a learning community whose members are not just open to new information and ideas but active in their pursuit. Each member of the board must be confident that their colleagues will:
A board can act more decisively and confidently when it has conducted a thorough inquiry than if it is just relying on a narrow range of information, resources, opinions, and perceptions. For that reason, rather than having all the answers, board members are more effective when they can frame and ask good questions. Effective questioning helps both boards and their executive team to develop a broader and more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing their organisation. An effective questioning strategy can also open the door to fresh thinking and new insights and ideas.
On the contrary, too many senior executives describe board meetings as like facing an inquisition. Therefore, an essential skill for board directors is not only knowing what questions to ask but how to ask them. Effective board members approach board meetings with a learning mindset. They shape questions that seek to understand avoiding judgmental or accusatory terms and tone. If executives (or, for that matter, fellow board members) feel under attack, it is understandable that they will respond defensively and be, generally, less forthcoming in any board discussions.
These issues goes to the heart of the board's culture. When questioning is handled poorly (or even discouraged), it allows crucial assumptions to go unacknowledged and confidently expressed assertions untested. Prejudice and complacency can persist along with a distorted sense of reality. Conclusions reached may be ill-founded and decisions flawed.
A third and, arguably, a crucial factor is the capability and impact of the board chair. Effective leadership of boardroom proceedings is the most fundamental responsibility of the board chair.
However, experience tells us that high-quality dialogue does not occur naturally or thrive easily in many board meetings. Too many board chairs treat board activities as a race against the clock. Each agenda item is a hurdle to be cleared as quickly and expeditiously as possible. In the process, rather than acknowledging divergent views, these are batted away, and those expressing them too easily styled as troublemakers.
Dialogue will not flourish unless the board chair creates a suitable environment. In part, this means encouraging and supporting honest exploration of ideas or propositions even when rejected by some board members. Individually board members will feel valued and more inclined to engage fully (including being willing to change their mind) when their contributions are treated seriously and built into the thread of discussions.
Many board members, particularly in smaller organisations, never come to terms with this fact. Further, board members work together relatively infrequently. The time between meetings makes it challenging to achieve continuity of thought and to develop dialogue-related teamwork.
Developing the competencies, both group and individual, needed for 'thinking things through' to reach agreed and soundly based conclusions, is central to the developing any high performing board.
Reference:
William Isaacs. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York, Doubleday, 1999.