I recently spent a fitful night unable to sleep because of the strong disagreement I knew we would be facing at the next day’s board meeting. A peacemaker by nature, I dread situations of conflict. Like many of us in ministry, I’m into conciliation, not confrontation. Why can’t we all just get along? Let’s find the win/win. Surely we can work something out so we can all be unified.
This wasn’t a case of misunderstanding. This was a case of board members clearly understanding the issues, but disagreeing on how to proceed.
Sure enough, the next morning saw a sharply divided board. Arguments were made, statements were countered. No one was attacked personally, but personal values and sensitivities clearly differed. When it came time to make a decision, the vote showed a serious division of the house.
I drove home somewhat discouraged—until I read the article in the September 2002 Harvard Business Review on “What Makes a Great Board Great.” Suddenly the situation was seen in an entirely different light.
The writer, Jeffery A. Sonnenfeld, looked at the recent meltdowns of corporate giants Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, which have focused intense scrutiny on boards. Were those directors asleep at the switch? Or too closely tied to a corrupt management team? Or simply incompetent?
“It seems inconceivable that business disasters of such magnitude could happen without gross or even criminal negligence on the part of board members,” writes Sonnenfeld. He analyzes the makeup and the practices of the boards of these failed companies, and concludes, “A close examination of those boards reveals no broad pattern of incompetence or corruption. In fact, the boards followed most of the accepted standards of board operations.”
Sonnenfeld then explores the differences between boards that fail and those that keep their organization healthy. He lists a number of factors that did NOT make a difference, including: regular meeting attendance, equity involvement, board members’ skills and age, board size and committees, and independence.
While these factors are important, all were in place in the board structure of the titanic failures. What, then, is the secret to boards successfully guiding their organizations away from hidden disasters?
“What distinguishes exemplary boards,” writes Sonnenfield, “is that they are robust, effective social systems.” He lists five elements. Let me highlight the two that are most germane to church boards.
- A climate of trust and candor. They share difficult information, and they can challenge one another’s conclusions coherently.
- A culture of open dissent. “Respect and trust do not imply endless affability or absence of disagreement,” writes Sonnenfeld. “Rather they imply bonds among board members that are strong enough to withstand clashing viewpoints.”
Much has been written about the importance of “consensus building” in church life, and it’s an important goal. But too many boards short circuit the process. Differences are avoided. Disagreement is discouraged. Dissent is cut off.
If, out of a desire to avoid conflict and arrive at quick consensus, the board develops a habit of groupthink, the church is in danger. If a group suppresses honest dissent, they’ll likely end up with board members that conform but will be unable to steer clear of looming hazards.
Yes, there’s a difference between dissent and disloyalty. Board members who have a private agenda that conflicts with the mission of the church have difficulty being faithful and effective board members. But among those who are committed to the success of the church, there will be dissent. That’s a sign of health.
If you’ve served on a church board, you’ve probably endured some snoozers, listening to the perfunctory reports, at other times enjoyed the sweetness of like-mindedness, and at others sweated out the tension every bit as suspenseful as a bomb-squad trying to prevent an explosive issue from blowing up. Facing conflict, working with people who think you’re wrong on a future-shaping strategic decision is not as pleasant as like-minded unity. But koinonia isn’t just about consensus. Working through conflict is a test and a sign of health.
A climate of healthy dissent could have made a huge difference at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. Sonnenfeld concludes: “If a board is to truly fulfill its mission—to monitor performance, advise the CEO, and provide connections with a broader world—it must become a robust team, one whose members know how to ferret out the truth, challenge one another, and even have a good fight now and then.
To order a copy of the Harvard Business Review article, call 1-800-988-0886 and ask for reprint R0209H.
