Webinar: How to Harness conflict in the boardroom

The most effective boards don't avoid conflict, they harness it. However, if not nurtured correctly it can be a fine line between effective and respectful challenge and a breakdown of trust and relationships.

Our expert presenters, Georgia Henry, Anna Phan,  and Fiona McKenzie will explore how boards can foster a culture of constructive challenge, encourage robust debate, and navigate disagreement in ways that strengthen governance and improve decision-making. We will examine;
•    the warning signs of unhealthy board culture
•    board and management team dynamics
•    why conflict escalates, and 
•    the strategies boards can use to restore trust and effectiveness before issues become toxic.

Specifically for board directors, chairs, and CEOs, this session will provide actionable insights to help your board turn disagreement into a strategic advantage.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:09

So, welcome everybody. Welcome to our webinar today titled How to Harness Conflict in the Boardroom to Optimize Outcomes. I'm joined today by Georgia Henry, Fiona McKenzie, and Anna Fand. So, welcome to you all team. My name is Sean McDonald, and I shall be your moderator in the background for the next 40 odd minutes, 45 minutes. Firstly, though, thank you for attending today. We always appreciate the effort you make to be here for our live webinar events. During the session, if you have any questions, please try and use the uh QA button on your toolbar. Just like just enables us to keep a track of everything as it's coming through. And we hope to uh uh answer as many questions as we have time for during the session. And and finally, if you stay through till the end, which of course we hope you will do, we have a really short one-minute survey, and I promise you it is only one minute at the end of the webinar for you to consider. It really helps us put together the uh the breadth of content that we have for you week after week, and it enables us to present uh well organize, I should say, not present the wealth of uh governance experts that we have for you in the team. For those not too familiar with Board Pro, we are a board software provider, sometimes called a board portal, and we serve just over 35,000 users around the world, around about 34 different countries, about 4,000 boards, and about 8,500 committees, would you believe? We enable organizations to prepare for and run their board meetings more efficiently and effectively with less time and deliver more impact and value for the organization. And as much as we are a board software provider, part of our wider mission here at BoardPro is to make the fundamentals of governance free and easy to implement for all organizations, but especially those organizations with resource constraints. And one of the many ways we do this is by providing free access to hundreds of governance templates and guides and white papers on our website, which funnily enough, you'll find in the resources section of our website. And these webinars that we host every week on a Thursday in Australia-New Zealand time, that is a great way of accessing really good governance knowledge from governance experts from around the world without the time commitment and costs associated with in-person events. So let me hand over to the team to introduce themselves, starting with uh Georgia, you first.

SPEAKER_02 2:50

Thanks, Sean. Um hi everyone, thanks for joining us. Um I am a culture and leadership advisor. I work with boards and CEOs, and uh at Henry Reed, we we really focus on optimizing and resolving complex issues affecting organization culture, leadership, performance, governance, and enabling strategic outcomes. So we focus on navigating challenging dynamics and workplace uh issues, um, which is why this topic is uh of such interest today. Um, Anna, would you like to introduce yourself?

SPEAKER_01 3:27

Absolutely. Thanks, Georgia. So my name is Anna Fan. I'm a director at Resolve Consulting. So Resolve was established to equip, sustain, and develop the healthy organizations. And particularly we work in the not-for-profit space, and that is across governance, people and also finance. And so one of the great joys we have is coming alongside boards in particular and helping to establish healthy principles of governance. And I'm really excited about today's topic because it's one that is often not talked about, but in the not talking about it, it then usually becomes present. So I'm really excited to uh to participate in this conversation.

SPEAKER_02 4:09

Great. Thanks, thanks, Anna. Fiona, would you like to introduce yourself?

SPEAKER_03 4:13

Hello everyone. Uh, welcome to this webinar. I'm joining you from the Gadigal lands of the Eora people, which is the central part of Sydney in Australia. I'm a negotiation and conflict specialist. I've got a background in management consulting, but I've spent the last decade and probably a decade and a half helping leaders and teams use positive conflict and negotiation strategy to drive alignment. I know it sounds funny, but I actually love conflict. So we'll probably talk about this as we go through. Not in the heat of the moment, that would be weird, but the benefits that come from positive conflict are really amazing for leaders, teams, boards, community organisations. The bulk of my work involves teaching negotiation to government, universities, and industry. And I speak at conferences on conflict skills and I coach leaders. So it's going to be a great session, everybody.

SPEAKER_02 5:10

Fantastic. Thank you. Um it's been an interesting topic. And when um I first started talking to people about, you know, we're talking about conflict in the boardroom and and how do we optimize conflict to achieve outcomes. Some of the feedback I got was should we really be calling this conflict? Should we just be focusing on robust debate and discussion and and um why is it actually really important? And I think part of this conversation is that we all know in theory that conflict is essential in the boardroom. We know that um um many governance and strategic risks are caused when we don't have healthy debate and and and challenge in the boardroom, and that the outcomes can be limited. Um, but I think there's there's a real difference between the theory of what we know and how we actually achieve that in reality, which is which is I think why when we look at Anna and Fiona and myself, why we all have roles to play in supporting organizations in in actually understanding how to harness um healthy conflict and how to create healthy conflict and what to do when it becomes quite negative and and destructive. Um so what does I just throw it to to you both, um Fiona and Anna, for you, what does healthy conflict look like in the boardroom? What is it, the type of things that you think should be demonstrated? Fiona?

SPEAKER_03 6:42

Um I've seen a lot of boards that think that they're really aligned, uh, but actually they they may and they make really quick decisions, but it turns out that they're not aligned at all. There's this sort of fake harmony lying underneath. And I think healthy conflict is when the conflict is actually um about the content or the deeper thinking that's needed. Unhealthy conflict is when it's about the individuals. So I think that's an important distinction. Um, I I really like this list that you've got, Georgia, on the slide. I would also add that um healthy conflict is needed in the boardroom for innovation. I read this really interesting article about when the Apollo, the NASA NASA was doing the Apollo Man on the Moon. Um what do we even call that? And the engineers were encouraged to fight with each other, but in a really positive way. And it was all about the mission, and they would point to the moon and say, Do we want to go here? And so they had this really healthy dissent and debate because they were so focused on the mission. And I think that's a really great metaphor for boards.

SPEAKER_02 7:51

Yeah, and and I think it's um, you know, when the the dysfunction can disconnect can come when you're not continuing to keep focused on the purpose of the organization, the mission and the vision of where you're wanting to get to. And Anna, what does healthy conflict look like for you in the in the boardroom and and um what have you observed?

SPEAKER_01 8:10

Yeah, I would absolutely affirm what um is being drawn into here because I think it's a really important point. Foundationally, organizations are there to serve a purpose. And so seeing that that conflict, that diversity of perspective is actually in service of the organization and pulling that perspective away from I'm not here to serve an agreement within the board, I'm here to serve the broader organization and the purpose that we are gathered here to do. And so I think that that's a really important foundation. I think that therefore having that perspective that different people, we talk about, you know, skills matrix. When we come in at resolve and do governance reviews, we're always looking at diversity of experience, diversity of skill, diversity of age, you know, all of the different diversity metrics so that you get a rounded perspective. Without, when you have healthy conflict, you are actually bringing that diversity of perspective. And so it's uh it's essentially that thing of how do we view this issue from a whole lot of different angles so that the board holistically can take a view on this matter. Um, and if we only have one perspective, it's kind of like an orchestra, right? Um so if you have only one instrument in an orchestra, like it's a it's a great noise, but it's not the beautiful symphony that you will get with the orchestra. And so it's that sense of, you know, the the role of the violin, the role of the flutes, that analogy holds also in the boardroom that each part has um has a role to play, each person has a role to play and a different perspective to bring to have that healthy conflict. Yeah, fantastic.

SPEAKER_02 9:42

Sean, go to the next slide, please. Great. Um, so I think it's it's really it's really clear um when we start to talk and and and when you're on a board or interacting with a board that there are impacts that arise from positive conflict and and from negative conflict. And I think um, you know, that innovation, focusing on ideas, being able to explore risks is really well understood with that with a positive conflict. And one of the things that we know is boards are continually in a situation and an environment that actually requires conflict and and and is in a situation where directors need to be considering competing priorities, allocations of resources, assessing different strategic options, uh risks versus returns, and deciding what to do as well as not want not what not to do, um, particularly around moral and and and ethical decisions. So some of these things is are really important that you know when I've seen conflict uh result in negative outcomes, it can either be because there is aggression in conflict or there is an a negative impact of conflict. Um and and as we've already said, that passivity or the lack of engagement and willingness to engage in conflict. So it can bring a board to a point of inaction, or it can result in poor decision making based on bias and assumptions because things haven't been explored. Um, Anna, from your experience, why does it work well in some boards and become damaging in others? And there's just a comment and a question there. Can you speak up a little bit to to yeah?

SPEAKER_01 11:41

Hopefully that's a bit better. Um apologies.

SPEAKER_02 11:43

Um and so sorry, Georgia, in terms of when I've seen the Yeah, do you have examples of when you've seen it work, you know, conf conflict um work well in some boards and potentially become damaging in others?

SPEAKER_01 11:58

Yeah, I think that one of the key foundations is how how much a board is expecting there to be conflict. So when you've got a foundation for healthy conflict, that conflict tends to go well. And examples that we would use here are, for instance, talking about the role of conflict within key documents. So your code of conduct, your board charter, but actually having before those documents are written, actually having a session at the board to talk about what is it that we're wanting to have, what will characterize healthy conflict, what will allow us to enter into these conversations, these robust conversations with psychological safety, with emotional intelligence, with all of the different frameworks and um underpinnings, foundations that will enable that conflict to go well. Yeah, great. Fiona?

SPEAKER_03 12:46

Yeah, look, I I agree with that. I think some things, some of the things that we need to put in place are the really structural things, boards, minutes, expectations, the government governance documents. But a lot of this is around the facilitation by the chair and the way that they uh provide an expectation that healthy dissent will happen. And I think that's part of when I think about the difference between positive and negative conflict, I think it's about the difference between embracing dissent or suppressing it. So good conflict is embracing the dissent. It's when we're working really hard to uncover different opinions and when we have those really awkward conversations and we know they're awkward, but they clear the air. Bad conflict is when that dissent um is suppressed. And when we stay silent. And I think um we don't think about silence as negative, but I I think uh that silence also is a form of negative conflict that leads to groupthink. So that's another one to watch.

SPEAKER_02 13:48

Yeah. Sean, next slide, please. Um and it's all of those, all of those things, those contributing factors, and and making sure that we are looking at um that our governance, board governance supports challenge and conflict um is really important, um, and that we set up the board culture to to make sure that it actually encourages that um that discussion and and and challenge. And I think it's really important that we focus. The goal is not to eliminate conflict because of all those things that you've just said as well, Fiona, groupthink, bias, um the inability to make effective decisions, but it's around ensuring that it's focused on issues and not individuals. And when I see conflict become negative, it's when it becomes quite personal and becomes more focused on individuals and the relationship rather than challenging the issue and the thinking and the decision-making and the governance. Um this happens for a whole lot of reasons. The main one being we're human, we are emotional beings, we are we are driven by our emotions, we are influenced by our past experiences and how they shape our willingness to engage in conflict, um, our level of fear of engagement in conflict, um, as well as our understanding of what is acceptable behaviours in the board that we're working with. And so the board culture here really does impact our ability to challenge, our ability to speak up and have a voice. So I think it's not only about the governance, the experience that you bring, the board um diversity, but it's around you know what is what might be holding us back based on our emotional responses on past experiences and our emotions that we feel in the boardroom that that might lead to the the development of conflict situations. Um but Fiona and and and Anna, generally there are some early warning signs when you're working with the board or in a boardroom. What are some of the early warning signs that that you've identified may help directors um see that things aren't going well and need to have some intervention?

SPEAKER_03 16:13

I think the early warning signs are things that we expect, the sort of side conversations, some sarcasm will slip in, some eye rolling. I think the next sort of step is some of those power games, one-upmanship, or information is power, so information is withheld. The hallway conversations are a classic. Um, when you know that things are being discussed outside the formal boardroom, that's a real warning sign that something's going on. Um, sometimes we see pressure to give in uh when people are really quickly triggered. It's those sorts of things that are the that are the early warning signs. You want to pay attention to those. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 16:56

And I would add in as well there absolutely those cues in yourself and others. I think that um Georgia makes a really fantastic point around we are human, we are emotional beings. Um, and so having that awareness of, okay, well, when when we're in this circumstance, how am I going? But also how is that other person going, seeming to be going. So noticing things like icy politeness, I think is a great one where there's quite curt or clipped ways of speaking. That's a real indicator that people are not particularly happy. Uh, and or a refusal to engage and a kind of, you know, like a, you know, like one of those senses of like, well, I'm just going to abstain from this conversation, or you guys just have the conversation you're wanting to have. Though absolutely that sarcasm. Uh, and the other one that is an early warning sign of conflict is where people you know within the board are raising concerns and they're repeatedly being brushed under the carpet. So for instance, when you're when people are beginning to be aware of, oh, look, you know, this just these conversations are not flowing, we are not getting to the level of governance maturity that we would be expecting, etc. And that is being repeatedly dismissed, um, I think that that's another sign that there's probably going to be some more conflict down the way.

SPEAKER_02 18:07

Yeah, I think, I think um that that's really relevant. I think also when you can see people aren't getting their, they're they aren't being heard, they're not, they're not given being given the opportunity to um explain why they may disagree with a certain decision or or the direction that the conversation's going in. So when we look at you know those early warning signs um and then how that transitions into conflict becoming toxic and and damaging, it is usually around the boardroom environment, the board culture, a lack of psychological safety, which can limit our ability to feel that we can speak up or challenge um in a safe way. Um, that there are dominant individuals that you just feel like you can't you can't get a word in, or that you're not given the share of voice and and time to do that, or that you are um spoken over or um disregarded. Um sometimes that that can stem from a lack of role clarity and accountability, particularly in uh boards that have um you know are less mature and less experienced. They um some directors may not understand what their their role is and what they're they're how it they're encouraged to speak up and and participate in debate. Um and one I see a lot in very purpose-driven organizations is this focus on harmony over healthy challenge. So there's a lot of agreement because we don't want to rock the boat, or we we're very passionate about the purpose of the organization. So we think that we will, you know, by being harmonious, we're actually going to be achieving better outcomes, which is not the case. Um, and and we've spoken there also about the unresolved grievances or a lack of trust that may be apparent and have evolved over time, or may not even be evolving you, but walking into a boardroom that there are unresolved grievances or lack of trust between some directors can really uh mean that um conflict then is is not healthy and becomes very toxic and damaging.

SPEAKER_01 20:22

Georgia, one other question, one other point I was just going to add in there, if that's okay, was just around because one of the things that I'm very passionate about is uh providing foundations for these great conversations to take place. And so that's why I was talking about things like board charter, code of conduct, etc. But another one which I think is a great early warning sign that conflict may start to occur is when the agendas are too tight. And so when the board is under enormous pressure to move at a pace that doesn't allow full conversation, and what that means is that dissenting voices, everybody, you know, if the chair is pushing um a speed of agenda, they're not going to be opening up that conversation, but also the entire board is wanting to move at a pace. And so I think that agenda creation in terms of understanding what topics are more likely to have uh you know discussion around them and ensuring that sufficient time is actually allocated to those key and particularly where they're purpose, uh purpose-centric decisions that are being made.

SPEAKER_02 21:21

Yeah, absolutely agree, Anna. And I think too um, in looking at the the board allowing themselves time to actually get to know each other and understand each other, I mean, agendas are generally fairly full, there is a lot of time pressure. Um, but I think that comes into the board culture and those behavioural norms as well, and setting the expectation that it's okay to say we're actually not ready to make a decision on this and we need to push back, we can't rush through. So, all of those expectations for behaviors and and ways of decision making, decision making making protocols. Are really important to having those established and well understood. And I think being able to make sure that you know that's embedded in the ways of operating right from board induction and onboarding of directors and setting those clear expectations for behaviors is a really important part as well.

SPEAKER_03 22:27

I was just going to say there are lots of different ways to categorize conflict. I tend to think of it about task, so the what we're doing, how we're doing it, relationship, so who we are, those personal ones and the values, so the why conflicts. But interestingly, we normally experience everything as a relational conflict, and we think it's the other person, we can't get on with them, they're being difficult. Sometimes fixing the structure and the sorts of things that you were both talking about actually will pull people out of that relationship conflict. And so because we experience everything as relational, fix the other things, the values alignment and the task alignment and the relational conflict should should not move into the toxic zone.

SPEAKER_02 23:15

Absolutely. And I think that comes back to that focus. Um, we should be focusing on the issue and the mechanisms for for resolving issues rather than the person, um, and and focusing on um evidence rather than assumptions, making sure that we have got the frameworks, particularly governance frameworks that allow us to resolve issues. Um for the World Cup fans, play the ball, not the person. Yes, perfect, perfect. Um, and I've seen boards though who've had the best intentions of being able to resolve uh issues in this way, but their governance framework um has not been set up in a way that actually gives them effective um uh um pathways for resolution. And so that is a really important uh important way to um make sure that your frameworks are enabling healthy debate and discussion and grievance resolution or conflict resolution. So we've got a couple of questions that have they've come in on the QA, so we'll just quickly jump to those. The first one's from Isabel. Um, as boards increasingly oversee AI, geopolitical risk, and cybersecurity, how will the skills needed to manage constructive conflict evolve over the next five years? Um, great, a great one. I think when we look certainly at um AI and you know, some tendency to explore uh issues um relying on information that is being provided to us. Um it's really, I think, the personal and interpersonal interpersonal skills and ability to show uh emotional intelligence when we're dealing with large issues, particularly issues that have moral and ethical decisions to be made is going to be really important. Having strong emotional intelligence, um, reasoning skills, critical thinking, these are going to remain important over the next uh five years in dealing with these skills. Um, Anna, what are your thoughts?

SPEAKER_01 25:25

Yeah, it's a really interesting point. I think that actually, like you're saying though, Georgia, the foundational skills uh are the same. And so, yes, you have these very complex matters. I think one of the key risks that I see, particularly when it comes to AI, is trying to switch that we will be um potentially there'll be so much information on a particular topic that it will be a case where we we remain we need to stay open to the perspective of the other despite having a large volume of information. And so I think that maintaining that curiosity, to your point, absolutely those skills to have the curious conversation, to consider the perspective of the other, and to notice in ourselves, even if we are absolutely certain we're right, um, how can we maintain dignity, respect, and good communication in those high octane conversations?

SPEAKER_02 26:20

Yeah, yeah, fantastic. Sure, we might flick to the next slide. There are a few more questions coming in and we will get to those as well. But I think when we look at um, you know, this just sort of summarizes what I think we've we've already said that effective boards really embed that challenge in their governance um practices so that diff uh disagreement and exploring different perspectives becomes normal, productive, and expected. And that's really around creating that right culture and environment. Um, one of the other questions that we've got here is how should a board respond when conflict escalates into a breakdown of trust, which is quite often how it what it ends up being, um, especially when the same concept um psychological safety is used by different parties in opposing ways. I love that. Let's weaponize, weaponize trust and psychological safety to to drive our own agenda. Um it's an interesting one, and for me, I always see that this we also need to be focusing on what are the issues, what's it what's underpinning the breakdown of relationship and trust, and focusing on on strategies for for how to um how to rebuild that, rebuild a relationship. And for me, trust, trust is is got three main elements. One is authenticity, so are we actually being genuine? Are all parties who are contributing to this breakdown of relationship through the conflict um presenting as authentic and genuine? Are they presenting as credible and providing credible evidence-based information consistently? And are they demonstrating empathy? And I think when we look at those elements of trust, um they're generally present. One or all three of those are generally present in a conflict that's become personal and led to a breakdown. Uh, and and so that does create a psychologically unsafe environment. Um, I would also say, when we how do we respond as a board? Um, sometimes they need to seek intervention um to mediate a situation uh and make sure that um you're able to actually work with those parties to understand root causes and and ensure a safe place for um resolving the conflict. Um Fiona and Anna, any other comments to add on.

SPEAKER_03 28:46

Yeah, I agree with what you've said, Georgia. I think um the boards that I've worked with that have really devolved into a total lack of trust, it's a very long process to get that back. And I I think it, you know, it could be done if there's a trusted person on the board. But as an outsider coming in, the approach that I would take is meeting with everybody one-on-one and really trying to understand the issues and distill those into a really core um agreement of what they are that everybody would agree with. So a neutral framing of the issues, and then um over weeks and weeks of meetings where we create a safe environment for people to talk to talk and share to actually um work through those issues and formalise an agreement. It's a much longer process than you would ex would expect, but you can bring that trust back, but only once you have an understanding of the issues and you actually take that time to invest in every uh everybody, make sure the rules are very clear that comes first about how how the exposure of the issues will happen. Um, and often people are in violent agreement and they don't realize.

SPEAKER_02 30:02

I think those bias, those those different perspectives can often really um sway our understanding of the other person's position. Sorry, Anna, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 30:11

Oh, yeah, no, I think that that's it's an excellent point. The other one is just noticing, and I thought it was a great point that you're pulling out there, Fiona, that you're having these conversations offline. I think that sometimes it can feel tempting if the conflict is in the boardroom to try and resolve things in the boardroom. And actually, when it comes to the degradation of trust, like when that's been um undermined, that really what you need to do is that that is a uh a personal one-on-one kind of a process and facilitation um to affirm what Fiona was saying is so helpful to have an outside perspective. People tend to feel really understood in that space. But I would encourage any board that's experiencing a breakdown in trust, don't you know, it's that whole thing of you know, you always um affirm people in public and uh you know challenge in private, um, that there is that sense of not trying to resolve it within the meeting itself, because that tends to um devolve into further lack of trust.

SPEAKER_02 31:11

Great.

SPEAKER_01 31:12

Thank you.

SPEAKER_02 31:13

Sean, you know, the next slide. Um, we've got a lot of questions coming in now, so we'll keep going through some of those questions. One of them um, when we look at how to avoid a toxic dynamic, and a critical role is the chair's role in setting the tone and and upholding standards. Um, one of the questions that come in has come in from David is how do you deal with a domineering chair? Um, and and quite often when I get approached by directors, it is around um, you know, there are challenges with the chair's behaviour or um the chair is has an unwillingness to resolve some of the conflicts. So I'm not going to jump in on this one first. Fiona, what are your thoughts around sort of how do we um how do you deal with the situation when it could be the chair that is part of the problem?

SPEAKER_03 32:03

Yeah, I don't think this is a very uncommon situation, to be honest. I think um I think for people in that situation, the very first thing to do is to get your emotions under control. You don't want to intervene until you're calmer. So whatever your emotion calming strategies are, breathing and hand on the heart, or you know, name and normalize those sorts of steps, do those first. I think a really um a really helpful tip when um it's it's a director, not a chair who's experiencing this, is to use what I would call strategic curiosity as a disruptor. So ask some questions, ask some dumb questions that are going to restore the conditions to good governance. So you might say from a board perspective, what's the actual decision we're trying to make today? And you then you're sort of bringing everybody back to to what to the purpose and why you're there.

SPEAKER_02 33:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 33:01

I think it's possible to protect the process without without challenging or undermining um the authority of the chair, but you've got to do it using questions, I think, not statements.

SPEAKER_01 33:11

Yeah, yeah, Anna. I'd also add in that there's a huge benefit in having periodic reviews of your board. So having you can have internal reviews every year, but they do tend to be managed by the chair. And so that uh becomes a bit of a feedback loop. However, if you get an external consultant in, um then that facilitation process can be very helpful. One of the things that we say at Resolve is that we get brought in when uh, you know, and we let our clients know what they need to hear, not necessarily what they want to hear. And so it's really that sense of look, this is this is the feedback that's been delivered. And it's actually a great way for directors to be able to give that feedback in a way that tends to be um aggregated into the board feedback process and therefore become a bit easier, A, for the director to give, but also for the chair to receive often.

SPEAKER_02 34:03

I I think so, and I think also focusing on the purpose of a review is around continuous improvement and learning and development and support. So that again, aligning that back to the purpose of the organization and why are we here, um, and that we're not in this alone. We're we're actually as a board where we're here to work together and focus on collective outcomes. So that can be a really effective way to start to address issues. Of course, and I've seen it time and time again, that you know, there are um the chair can be a real roadblock to effectiveness of the board. Um, and and then it needs to be the board making a decision around um what what happens next, how are the how is the board going to address this with them, whether that is uh and some of those are very challenging discussions around um stepping off the board or or you know really having a bit of an intervention. So really challenging when the the the chair is um part of that issue. Um the other point I've got there is it around establishing clear values aligned behavioural expectations and holding each other to account, and that aligns with one of the other questions um from Peggy who asks, What are your best tips for dealing with more challenging personalities? Um so someone could be a director, a client, um, an executive who's habitually argumentative and disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. So, again, I think um having some really clear behavioural expectations and ways of uh addressing um uh the ways of interacting is important. Um, but also um having guidelines to and and having you know, things are becoming very argumentative and and non-productive in a in a board meeting is to actually say that we you're coming back to agenda, coming back to time frames, this you know, maybe this needs to be taken offline to try and diffuse the conflict in the moment and address it externally at another time. Um, but I think it's really important to acknowledge different perspectives and points of view, but again, keep things focused on the outcome that is trying to be achieved, um, and and have those frameworks for behavioural expectations. Fiona, what have how have you seen effective ways for for dealing with, I guess, individuals who are are really difficult in a media?

SPEAKER_03 36:28

Yeah, I think thanks, George. I think for me, the very first step is actually to look at yourself when you're dealing with difficult people. I do believe that we all carry biases that we're not aware of. Um and in negotiation and conflict, I think if you can uncover your biases, you're more likely to be engaging with that person in a clear and more honest way. Sometimes I think we bring things to conflict and we don't realize. So you want to protect yourself from your own biases is the first step. And the second step is actually be prepared to change your mind. Um, first understand, understand them first before you engage and prepare your rebuttals. So be listening, trying actually listening to understand, not just to hear what they're saying. So look at yourself and be prepared to change your mind.

SPEAKER_02 37:20

Fantastic. Thanks for Anna. Any any other thoughts?

SPEAKER_01 37:23

Yeah, I think with that one, it's can be helpful just to have a few phrases in the back pocket to to bring out. And one of them, particularly where there is conflict and um obstinate behavior, is to pull it away. We talked earlier about, you know, playing the ball, not the man, um, and say having a phrase like, you know, for instance, I I think that we're hearing two genuinely different views on this matter. And that just helps to make it de-escalate the emotion that goes alongside it and the uh yeah, that that sense of overwhelm that some of the directors can be feeling. Because I think that making it that there are different perspectives, and that is in service of the decision that we're making. So just normalizing that. And the other thing is um not going equal and opposite. So if someone's being particularly aggressive or obstinate, um, we we do as humans have a natural tendency either to fight or flight in those circumstances, and fight would look like equal and opposite behavior. So really going head to head with them and that will always escalate. So that energy will rise in the room and that will escalate the process. So noticing that tendency in yourself and going, okay, well, what does it look like to neither fight nor flight, but actually to find the middle ground and draw this back to the issue?

SPEAKER_02 38:37

Yeah. And and and you know, neuroscience tells us that when our emotions are challenged, we're feeling negative emotions, we shut our thinking shuts down. So we become less able to engage and able to resolve things effectively. One of the other um strategies I just had in the in the previous slide too was having you know, purposefully um allocating a role of a devil's advocate to to be the one who is challenging and rotate that role so that you're actually encouraging um people to um take a contrary position to explore biases and assumptions and um you know what what good looks like as well. Um so thanks, Sean. We can go move forward. Um so I guess when we look at things, the high performing boards, we know high performing boards are not conflict um free. They have learned how to engage in robust, respectful disagreement while maintaining trust, alignment, and a shared commitment to success. And that sort of sums up a lot of what we've spoken about. Um another question that's that's come in is around a board of five people for a privately owned company with a managing director, CEO, and owner, that's a one role, um, has accused the board of being his source of stress and anxiety, and that's caused a health event. Um we can't dismiss the CEO, so how does the board move on from this? This has caused a breakdown of trust and stress around board meetings for all directors. Does this require intervention? I think for everyone's um everyone's uh psychological health and safety, yes, it requires intervention, and and I would say it requires um some external mediation um to to help resolve these. Um Fiona, what are your thoughts?

SPEAKER_03 40:30

Yes, I I agree, George. I think that sounds like uh an external independent person's needed to work through that.

SPEAKER_02 40:36

Yeah, agree, agree. Um, I'm just quickly go to another question. Um very recently come onto a board. The chair is running right. She has her group of eight out of twelve that follow her. They meet as a group outside of meetings, set unrealistic timeframes, shut the CE out of conversations, dominates conversations. I don't know what to do. Anna, any advice for that one?

SPEAKER_01 41:01

That's yeah, what's being described there is an inherent failure of governance. Um and so absolutely I would be bringing in external support at that stage. Because the problem is that when you've got these entrenched behaviours, it can be very difficult for people to actually they're in, these are the waters in which they're swimming and they are probably achieving a lot of the goals that they would like to be through these behaviours. Therefore, they will be resistant to changing it. So bringing someone in that is that external person to provide that guidance, provide that way through and that recommendation would be absolutely where I would be going with that one.

SPEAKER_02 41:37

Yeah, fantastic. Another question from Isabel Have you seen examples where disagreement directly led to a better strategic or risk management outcome? Absolutely, all the time, because when people have different perspectives, um a well-functioning board will stop and listen and understand and ask questions to clarify why people have a different view or perspective, things that may need to be considered that haven't been considered, um, which have, you know, because we all we only know what we know. Um, and so it's really important that these different perspectives are explored and understood because they will support better decisions and and outcomes. Um, and that is really what a healthy board should be, and a high-functioning board should be doing. So, just in summary, when conflict begins to become toxic, it's really important to act as soon as it's in parent that relationships are risk. You have obligations under Health and Safety Act for psychological and psychosocial safety. You should really be refocusing again down to why are we here, refocus on our purpose, our core beliefs, our values to bring alignment in that reinforcing behaviors, um, making sure that governance um supports the way forward, clarity of roles, decision-making processes, um uh governance protocols, um, and and as a as a very clear strategy and a very robust strategy is to seek independent support when you need it. It's very, it's very difficult when you are working in an environment, a board environment, to be able to resolve issues. It's different from working in an organization where you're seeing each other all of the time. So, in a boardroom, resolving conflict and turning turning toxic relationships or conflict into something healthy can often require uh independent um support. Um, so just onto the last slide there. Thanks, Sean. So I guess it strong governance in summary does require constructive challenge. Um, Fiona, any final comments around this uh important topic of creating healthy conflict?

SPEAKER_03 44:02

Thanks, Georgia. I think actually understanding what positive conflict is is a really good start. I think if a board um, and I've got a tool that I work through with this, but it if a board can place themselves, you know, in a quadrant, are they concealing things? Are they toxic and combative? Is it a fake harmony? Are they, you know, just all being complacent or actually are they engaging in positive conflict? So understanding comes first and then backfilling all of those structural issues.

SPEAKER_01 44:31

Fantastic. Anna? And I think it's just recognizing that robust conversations are the foundation of healthy governance. And so very much normalizing that there will be disagreement and being concerned if there isn't, actually, I think is the other way of looking at that. Yeah, fantastic. And we have another question.

SPEAKER_02 44:50

What's an example of independent support? Is there a particular company? I would very happily say you could reach out to Fiona, Anna, or myself. Um, this is what we do, and we do provide that independent support to boards. Um, so please reach out to us if that's of interest. We'd love to help you because we really do see these challenging situations regularly. They are difficult to resolve because they generally become quite quite personal. Um, so that that's that's it, Sean. Thank you very much, everyone, um, for for attending.

SPEAKER_00 45:30

Thanks, Georgia. So, everybody, please feel free to connect to our team today on LinkedIn. I'm sure they'll look forward to your connection. Uh, now just a quick FYI. We have hundreds of our webinars on the uh library of our website. So if you're looking for past content, past webinars, you'll find them uh in the webinar section of our website. So you shall receive an email from me tomorrow, which will include a copy of today's webinar, the transcript, and the slides. As you leave the webinar today, please uh try and find time for our quick one-minute survey. And if you're considering board software for your organization, then we'd love to hear from you. Better still, um, try our free trial. It's a 30-day free trial, no credit card is required, and it's really simple to get started. So, thank you again, everybody, for your time today. I hope you enjoyed the session like I did. Thank you, Georgia, Anna, and Fiona for your time today. Uh, look forward to seeing you all at our next webinar. Everybody, have a great day.