An experienced male director commented at the same workshop that, “…in the boardroom, men often hold back from asking questions because they seem to feel a gender obligation to behave as if they understand everything”.

Research also seems to support the observation that male-dominated boards might be deficient in their ability to inquire and question effectively. For example, one US study suggests that, compared with men, women directors are likely to show greater persistence than their male colleagues in pursuing answers to difficult questions. [1]

Regardless of their membership mix—and whether there are verifiable gender differences—boards should actively ensure that they do not suffer from an inability to adequately inquire and question. Where this inherent learning disability exists, the risks are high.

Valuing the quest for answers

The problem of inadequate inquiry processes may also reflect a particularly narrow, old-fashioned view of what directorial skills should be sought when making board appointments.

One of Australasia’s leading chairmen, for example, was speaking to a group of aspiring directors about their prospects of getting onto a listed company board. He stated rather patronisingly that a candidate for one of his boards who hadn’t managed a $100 million turnover company wouldn’t be seriously considered for appointment. That put-down immediately eliminated not only most of the women in the audience but also most of the men. Many of them had built outstanding careers in other fields and had skill sets and perspectives that would prove very valuable in the boardroom.

Defining intelligent naivety

A much more positive and accurate label than ‘dumb questions’ is the term intelligent naïvety. Explicit value is ascribed in some professions (e.g. nursing) to the role of naïve inquirer. Like much in corporate governance, this concept is inherently paradoxical.

It is about a board’s ability to use the undoubted intelligence of its members—both individually and collectively—to ask profound questions about matters they may know comparatively little about. Such questions often go to the heart of business strategy and even organisational purpose. When well formulated and well timed, intelligently naïve questions can force the whole board to take a step back to re-evaluate its basic assumptions and long-accepted analyses.

In one respect, the application of intelligent naïvety is not new to most boards. They welcome or at least tolerate the types of questions that proactive new directors should be expected to ask to get up to speed. New board members are not generally expected to know as much as longer-serving directors about the business. The challenge for every board, however, is not just to accommodate the curiosity and ‘need to know’ orientation of newbie board members but to encourage longer-serving members to adopt a similar mindset.

One of the most sought-after director attributes should be the confidence to ask—and continue to ask until a satisfactory answer is forthcoming—the ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ types of questions.

Once the attribute of intelligent naïvety is understood and applied by a board, it is less likely to fall into the trap of ‘group think’. This phenomenon results in poor decisions being made collectively, which their intelligence would not have allowed directors to take as individuals.

Creating a conducive environment

Unacknowledged aspects of board cultures often discourage the exercise of intelligent naïvety. Status differences, for example, may mean that some voices are more likely to be heard (and acknowledged) than others. Unexplored differences in expectations about the way individuals should participate may result in some individuals holding back while others occupy a disproportionate amount of the board’s airtime. Because board membership is often valued as a form of recognition or social inclusion, individuals may be reluctant to prejudice their relationship with boardroom colleagues by ‘rocking the boat’. Undue executive dominance of the board’s thinking may also inhibit directors from expressing intelligent naïvety.

The first step is to raise the board’s consciousness of the value of exercising intelligent naivety and to discuss ways in which the board can encourage and support all members in its application. Resultant expectations should be made explicit by their inclusion in directors’ job descriptions and in a statement of board values or operating philosophy forming part of the board charter or other governance documentation. It is important to clearly state the need for the board to seek out and articulate differences.

Secondly, this commitment needs to be reinforced by aligning key board processes such as selection, induction and board/directors’ evaluation processes. In a general sense these processes need to ensure that the application of intelligent naïvety is rewarded rather than punished. The type of periodic governance training or professional development undertaken by many boards should reinforce these processes.

Thirdly, consider the use of techniques that can assist reflective, critical thinking and amplify the voice of intelligent naïvety. For example:

· adopt systematic processes that offer different ways of looking at things and use techniques that enable individuals to put forward their ideas in a neutral or an anonymous manner—for example, brainstorming (posing questions or generating ideas without any evaluation during the creative process)

· assign the role of devil’s advocate or ‘critical evaluator’. Invite that role holder to say the un-sayable and ask the un-askable.

· invite the board as a whole to consider unpopular alternatives

· plan board meetings so that there is enough time to seek out and explore different ways of seeing things

· deliberately delay important decisions until they have been more thoroughly examined.

To ensure that the potential of intelligent naïvety is realised, the chair’s role is particularly important. The chair must consistently encourage an atmosphere of open inquiry. When speaking, they should demonstrate that they value intelligently naïve questions and see them as a fertile opportunity to explore new angles.

The chair must be impartial and constantly alert for opportunities to encourage individuals to give voice to their intelligently naïve questions and to support them when they do. If questions are being negated because, for example, they query established basic assumptions, the chair should intervene to ensure the question is heard and addressed. As the board’s discussion leader, the chair should give high priority to drawing out objections and doubts, and accept questions that might imply criticism. Old-fashioned humility is a major ingredient in effective board leadership.

Besides insisting that the open and honest sharing of ideas is an essential part of a healthy board culture, the chair can assist by not stating their own analysis or personal preferences at the outset of a board discussion. This can easily discourage other directors from raising questions that may go against those views.

Valuing the role of intelligent naïvety is to recognise that no individual or group is infallible. As someone once said, ‘the only dumb question is the one you wanted to ask but didn't’.

(1) Vicki Kramer, Alison Konrad and Sumru Erkut (2006). Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Corporate Governance. Wellesley, MA. Wellesley Center for Women

Originally published in Board Works #2, 2010