Viewpoint
Making the Case for Conflict
By Peter McGinn
A CEO for whom I once worked considered any vote by the board that wasn’t unanimous to be a signal of management dysfunction. If you couldn’t get a unanimous vote on a proposal, you either hadn’t prepared well or explained and persuaded adequately. And, if you expected to encounter opposition on a vote by the board, you needed to either rework or defer the proposal.
Most issues deliberated by the board originate with management and thus have the CEO’s explicit endorsement, so a lack of board unanimity can be interpreted as lukewarm support of the CEO.
I disagree. If CEOs sincerely want the full benefit of their boards, they should regard unanimity as a sign of trouble, not progress. I like to refer to what I call the First Law of Diversity: If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is not necessary. If trustees are always in complete agreement with the CEO and with one another, then where is the added value of having a board?
Indeed, this applies to any group. If the members are interchangeable or uniform in their skills, ideas and experiences, then they are likely to lack innovativeness, insight and adaptability to change.
Twenty years ago, when I was a consultant to the organization I now lead, I facilitated a senior management retreat. The organization had recently completed a merger, and a new CEO had come on board. The management team he inherited didn’t like to listen to each other or to support each other’s objectives. On a team simulation exercise, they demonstrated overt conflict, and their group effectiveness scores were low.
Over the course of the next two years, the CEO pulled together a new team and built a culture of cooperation. I again facilitated an off-site retreat and used a similar team simulation exercise. The conflict was gone; participants sought ways to support and agree with each other. But we were all in for a surprise. Their effectiveness scores were even worse than those of the dysfunctional group. An excess of harmony proved just as destructive as an excess of conflict.
It may be easiest to understand why this is so by using examples from team sports. In assembling a team, a good coach selects members with complementary skills and assets. Looking at a typical team, you will observe differences in size, strength and speed that correspond to the different roles to which the players are assigned. The team gets its competitive advantage both from the talents of the individual members and from the ways that the coach deploys them.
If, however, you were able to clone the MVP of a team and fill all the positions with identically talented players with identical skills, you would almost certainly lose your competitive edge. In working with a board, the chair and the CEO should be using the same calculus as a good coach. What blending of talents best suits the goals of the organization?
Diverse backgrounds, experiences, thinking styles and decision-making approaches improve board deliberations. Particularly in a rapidly changing environment, a board and management team that have multiple talents and perspectives have much greater adaptive capabilities than do homogeneous teams. This mirrors the natural world where diversity within a species theoretically confers better adaptive capacity than a species that is perfectly suited to a single environment.
When you are perfectly suited to one environment, it means that you have eliminated variation and you can function at the highest level of efficiency. Unfortunately, the price of that uniformity and maximum efficiency is lack of flexibility when circumstances change.
However, diversity also leads to challenges. It is much more difficult for a diverse group of people to align with a common vision. Arriving at consensus takes more time and effort. Such a group will confront unexpected conflicts and miscommunications. People on a diverse team are more apt to misread others’ intentions and misconstrue their actions. Such groups can expect a higher degree of interpersonal tension.
Indeed, that is why so many people, who know better, nevertheless seek out others similar to themselves to serve as board colleagues. It is much more comfortable to work with like-minded people whose lifestyle and priorities are similar. It is easier to achieve quick agreement than it is to struggle through an intense dialogue with others who don’t see the world in the same way.
But think about the health care environment and the pace of change. Which group—a homogeneous one or a diverse one—is likely to spot emerging trends more quickly? Which type of group is more likely to identify alternative courses of action? Which one would be more likely to face up to unpleasant truths? Conversely, which one would be more convinced of the inherent rightness of its traditional approaches? Which one would reject contrary opinions? Which would miss signals of market changes?
In health care, where the speed of change is only going to accelerate, it will become more important than ever to have dynamic boards who can use diversity productively.
Therefore, as a CEO, I know that I must value constructive conflict on both my board and within my senior management team. I want diverse and adaptable colleagues who possess the complementary skills and styles that lead to organizational vigor—and competitive advantage. Like most other people, I find board unanimity easier and more comfortable. I know, however, that my organization is best served when trustees contribute from their unique perspectives, using their individual skills, in their own personal style, on behalf of the shared mission of the organization.
Peter McGinn, PH.D., is president and CEO of United Health Services, Binghamton, N.Y. He can be reached at (607) 762-2263.
This article 1st appeared in the December 2099 issue of Trustee Magazine.
To respond to this article, please click here.
