We agree with all of that, but it would be naïve not to acknowledge that when conflict is not handled well, it can be very distracting and unproductive. In fact, it can be disastrous for both the board and organisation and, depending on the nature of the conflict, for the individuals involved. This underscores the urgency and importance of effective conflict resolution in the boardroom.
Being realistic, many boards grapple with or will grapple with unproductive conflict. The question then arises: What is the most effective response? Do you turn a blind eye and hope it will dissolve by itself? Do you find a way to evade or marginalise the problem? Do you jump right in to address it more directly at the risk of exacerbating the situation?
Fortunately, there are well-researched approaches to understanding the root cause and intervening effectively. Having proven strategies to handle and resolve unproductive conflict in the boardroom should provide a sense of security to board members and executives, reassuring them that there is a way forward in these challenging situations.
A good starting point is a recent article in which authors Randall Peterson, Priti Pradhan Shah, Amanda Ferguson and Stephen Jones identify four common patterns that cover virtually all team conflicts: [1]
- conflict that emanates from one individual
- two people in conflict with each other
- conflict between two subgroups
- conflict across the whole group.
They also report research that demonstrates that taking a proactive approach to resolving conflict—one that respects the interests of the whole group—can not only resolve the conflict but is also likely to produce positive outcomes. It can also result in increased trust and better decisions that are more likely to be supported.
Peterson and his colleagues offer some thoughts on how to approach each category of conflict.
When there is a solo dissenter
When conflict surrounds one individual, the problem might be that someone is the odd one out. Perhaps unmotivated or difficult to get along with for other reasons, this individual is a continuing source of friction. The authors warn against ganging up, making this person a scapegoat for other problems in the group as well. Attempting to shut them down is also a mistake.
A better approach is to try and uncover possible underlying problems (eg, unclear expectations of them or personal challenges outside of their board role). The chair has an important behaviour-modelling role in genuinely attempting to understand the dissenter’s perspective, for example, to build empathy and potentially draw out new insights for the board, helping it to understand problems more deeply.
But more fundamentally, this problem demands to be addressed one-on-one. A commonly invoked alternative—involving the whole board in a team-building initiative—is likely to do little more than annoy other board members who know that they are not the problem.
When there is a ‘boxing match’
Peterson et al advise that conflict between two people in a team is the most common pattern of conflict in a group. They suggest that most team members are unlikely to take sides, making it likely that the conflict between the duo will continue until one is knocked out or a ‘referee’ steps in to mediate.
If the two people concerned have a history of animosity toward one another, mediation may help resolve the conflict, but mediation sessions should be kept private and separate from the team. As the authors say, the mediation should not be a drama for the rest of the team to watch. In another context, it might be possible to reassign one or both protagonists to other teams, but this is rarely the case in a boardroom situation.
If the conflict is less about the relationship than about matters in front of the board (task conflict), a different strategy is required. The emphasis should be on valuing the existence of different perspectives and keeping the expression of disagreement civil. This approach will likely help the team perform better in the long run. While it often resolves naturally as the board moves towards consensus on what action to take, there may be some benefit in dividing into small subgroups first. This allows people to disagree in a more intimate forum, reconsider their positions, and bring the best versions of their ideas back to the board.
The authors also note that it may be tempting to try and encourage potentially valuable task conflict by, for example, assigning a devil’s advocate. They conclude, however, that conflict created artificially like this does not produce the same psychological reaction as listening to authentically different points of view. Nor does it translate into better decisions for the team. To stimulate divergent thinking and improve team performance, the better strategy is to ensure the board has a diverse membership and that it takes the time to encourage and allow genuine differences of opinion to emerge.
When there are two warring factions
When two subgroups within the board are opposed, each preferring a different approach or outcome, the authors suggest that most board members are likely to take one side or the other. In this “us versus them” scenario, little effort will likely be made to consider the other side’s perspective. Instead, each side will focus on winning by digging their heels in on their preferred course of action.
Although board decision-making by majority vote is commonly provided for in corporate constitutions, it may not result in a satisfactory outcome. The losing side typically feels ignored or diminished in some other way and will not wholeheartedly support the implementation of the decision.
Research suggests that a better approach is introducing additional ideas or alternatives (often referred to as ‘the third way’) to help the factions move past their seemingly opposed preferences. This allows the factions to understand their underlying interests better, make trade-offs, and develop an emergent solution that both sides can support. Readers conversant with modern negotiation theory will see the parallels in this.
When there is a blame game going on
While situations in a group where conflict involves contention between all members are relatively rare, this pattern can emerge when everyone has a different view on what should be done. However, Peterson et al contend that it is more likely that whole-team conflict will emerge in response to poor group performance. This sees board members assigning blame to others who, in turn, respond in a similar fashion. They note that while assigning blame for poor team performance to specific individuals is tempting, it usually generates more conflict than it resolves.
In these circumstances, the whole board must come together in the best interests of the organisation. This may mean better articulating the board’s goal or vision or reaffirming its identity. Debriefing poor performance is important but should focus on collective rather than individual shortcomings. It is better to look forward rather than rehashing who did what, when. Peterson et al advise shifting the focus of the conversation from looking at causes to the need to work together to resolve the issues moving forward.
Peterson, Shah, Ferguson and Jones observe that each group’s conflict is as unique as the individuals involved, and yet it will probably fit into one of these four patterns. Knowing the pattern of your board’s conflict gives you more information about the number of people involved, how they are involved, and where to focus your efforts to achieve positive outcomes from group conflict.
Notes
[1] Randall S. Peterson, Priti Pradhan Shah, Amanda J. Ferguson and Stephen l. Jones. ‘4 Common Types of Team Conflict – and How to Resolve Them.’ HBR, 7 May 2024.
