Research indicates there are cognitive limitations on the number of tasks a group can manage concurrently. More tasks equals more cognitive load [1] and consequential negative impact on performance.
Individuals and groups that switch between multiple tasks take longer to complete them and make more mistakes. [2]
The same is true for decision making; groups are most effective when they focus on one major decision at a time. Attention across multiple issues degrades both efficiency and the quality of decision making. [3]
One view of governance is that boards exist to make a very small number of very big decisions such that others can make many smaller decisions consistent with the board’s intent. The cited research is consistent with that perspective.
Yet boards are tempted to roam broadly across the business wanting to engage with all types of matters that most agree retrospectively were a poor use of their time.
Generally, the root cause of this is twofold. First, a failure to establish a comprehensive policy and delegation framework that limits the issues that need the board’s regular attention. As long as these aspects of the business remain within the limits of specified policy or monitoring indicates adherence to set criteria, the board’s ongoing focus is not needed.
This action sends vital signals. For the board this is about what matters justify its time and attention. To management, it is about what should be reported on and proposed to the board.
Second, there can be a lack of discipline in keeping out of irrelevant matters and/or delving into unnecessary detail (the weeds). A crisp reminder from the chair will often suffice but all board members should be alert to both of these typical shortcomings and speak up about them when necessary, holding each other accountable for board productivity.
Finding essential matters for the board’s attention is not hard. In our review work we ask directors: what four matters should time be spent on in the next year? There is usually a surprising level of agreement. Discuss and agree the key ones. Schedule one per quarter for robust discussion. Set them into the board’s annual work plan. Signal to management that advice and information are required. Look to third parties to present their perspectives. Expect directors to do their own reading. The point is not to make decisions, but to be better informed when decisions will be required in the future.
‘We struggle for strategic thought time’ is often the lament we hear from boards. An aggressive cull of the agenda is a good first step. Active meeting-by-meeting agenda management by the chair is essential.
Focus and productivity in groups can begin to decline after just 90 minutes. [4] Obviously breaks will help but, even then, after three hours concentration will wane. So, six-hour meetings are not optimal. The key is to structure a meeting with the main items at the front. Perhaps a few minutes of ‘limbering up’ (eg, a quick environmental scan: what are we seeing out there? or similar) then into the main items for the day. Spend the first two hours on matters the board has agreed it needs to add real value to.
Yes, conformance and oversight must be done, but most of the board’s time should be spent on just those few things directors have agreed are central to the organisation’s success over the next year or so.
Notes
- Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
- Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D., & Evans, J. (2001). Executive control of cognitive process in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797.
- McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall.
- Baker, S. (2016). The Science of Meeting Duration. Harvard Business Review
