In the boardroom, the give-and-take of effective dialogue is not just essential but critical to group learning and sound decision-making. Ideally, there is a balance in which directors switch between contributing in an outgoing, instigative mode and an incoming, receptive mode according to the progression of conversations about different matters.  

Past criticisms have focused on directors who are active ‘transmitters’ but poor listeners. Increasingly, however, feedback is about directors who hardly ever say anything. Boards are in the business of thinking things through. If a director is not articulating and communicating their thoughts, there is, arguably, little value in their board membership. This should cause as much concern as directors who take up an unwelcome proportion of total board meeting airtime. 

Directors need to be good ‘dancers’ 

A worthwhile conversation, when balanced among its members in a group setting, can be likened to a dance, with first one person leading and the others receiving cues and following. [1] Dancers take turns leading and following, giving and receiving. Together, they create a collaborative dance. The ideal is to strive for such a dynamic in boardroom conversations.  

It’s clear that both transmitting and receiving conversation modes are necessary for effective communication. The problem arises when everyone is operating in the same mode. In the boardroom, the aim is to harness the collective wisdom of all members. Everyone in ‘receive’ mode can lead to unproductive silence and false consensus. Everyone in ‘transmit’ mode can result in excessive, often irrelevant, talking and limited learning and engagement. Striving for a balance between these modes is critical to fostering a more inclusive, effective boardroom environment. 

Problems for boards 

Governing boards are particularly vulnerable to an imbalance in communication modes. They comprise experts or high achievers in a field or those who occupy decision-making positions in other organisations. So, board members are often used to being in positions of authority where they expect to do a lot (if not most) of the talking. They expect other people to listen and accept what they have to say. The board also occupies a position of authority and credibility that can readily ‘infect’ its members.  

It is not surprising, therefore, that boards are vulnerable to overuse of the transmit mode. A common feature is that some people do not so much listen as wait for their turn to speak. Sometimes, they don't even wait. Some directors, inveterate interrupters, cannot wait to inject their point of view or snippet of information. Preoccupied with their own knowledge and lacking self-awareness, they seem to have little, if any, capacity to hear and absorb the messages of fellow directors, especially those whose ideas differ from their own.  

Eventually, those forced mainly into receiver mode can give up trying to share their ideas. In the worst cases, they may ‘tune out’ completely. 

By the same token, not everyone sitting around a board table is inclined to actively contribute to the board’s dialogue, let alone dominate it—for a variety of reasons. For example, when there are apparent or perceived power or status inequalities within the board, those who feel subordinate in some way may confine themselves to the receiver mode out of a sense of personal safety. But their quietness may reflect a different style of processing information. They will speak only when they feel they have made sense of others’ contributions and can add something further.  

Unfortunately, a director’s silence may also reflect a fundamental competency issue—a struggle to understand what is going on and to add anything relevant or of value to the board's dialogue. 

Changing mode 

Regardless of the reasons, a board that suffers from an imbalance between transmit and receive modes of conversation will not be nearly as effective as one with practiced fluency in the conversation ‘dance’.  

Being conscious of these issues, a board can deliberately monitor the ebb and flow of its conversation. The board chair’s role is vital in ensuring that the board is hearing and processing what its members are saying, regardless of the strength of their presentation or the perceived authority of their views. A common challenge for board chairs is to ensure that certain board members do not dominate the conversation and that other, typically quieter, board members can contribute their ideas and experience. A brief review at the end of each meeting is a good time to check how effective the board’s collective conversational engagement has been. 

Individually, directors should take some personal responsibility for their conversational mode and the nature and level of their engagement in the board’s dialogue. One suggestion is to focus on actions you might take to switch modes deliberately. [2] For example, you can hold a symbol of each mode in your mind, switching as appropriate. Shooting an arrow toward a target might symbolise the transmit mode, and imagining yourself as a satellite dish receiving a signal is the alternative. Body language is also influential in a conversation setting, with body arrangement, deliberately or not, signalling whether you are in sending or receiving mode.  

In a boardroom, switching modes quickly is necessary. For example, a sincerely expressed point of view invites favourable reception and understanding, but its content may require an equally sincere and prompt pushback. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. Conflict avoidance in many boardrooms means individuals keep their negative reaction to what has been said to themselves and only express this later, in a different setting. This type of passive-aggressive behaviour can easily damage mutual trust and confidence within the board. 

Another challenge is recognising that you may need to switch out of your customary conversation mode. For example, it is flattering to be the acknowledged board authority on a particular subject, perhaps as the most financially literate. In many boardrooms, your fellow directors might be happy remaining in the receptive mode, leaving you to do all the talking (and thinking) about financial matters. This is inappropriate when, as in other matters, the board is collectively responsible for financial governance.  

In this situation, you should consider occasionally deliberately shifting yourself to receptive mode and waiting for your colleagues, even if the silence becomes awkward. To encourage them to switch mode, you can ask them open questions, such as “What are your thoughts about this matter?” and give them plenty of time and attention as you wait for their response.  

Directors who remain stuck in one or other of these two modes, or who find it difficult to switch when the flow of the board's dialogue dictates, will be less capable communicators and less valuable contributors than those who can.  

Notes

[1] Loren Ekroth ‘The Yin and Yang of Conversation’ Better Conversations, August 22, 2006. 

[2] Ekroth (2006), op cit.