Board Coalitions

Reshaping informal alliances

The longer individuals serve on a board, the more likely it is that they will gravitate toward peers who share their views and sentiments. This is a natural human process, known as the similarity-attraction effect, researched extensively by psychologist David Bryne. The research investigates our tendency to prefer those who are more like us because they reinforce esteem for our identity and affirm the correctness of our opinions. Even a few small similarities can trigger perceptions of similarities, which sets off a chain of events that lead us to like similar people more and more. We listen to them more closely, ignore instances of disagreement, and reach out proactively to engage them. Although trivial, who a board member sits next to when given a choice can be an indication of a psychological connection, or at least greater comfort being around another person. More conversation with the person may involve a search for additional points of connection, which are then magnified in importance (we both grew up in Chicago!). It’s a short step from there to conversations about board matters, where opinions are expressed and gradually brought into alignment. Over time, voting patterns may reveal coalitions which have become solidified and therefore difficult to influence. Coalitions, if allowed to harden sufficiently, can create fissures which impede decisions and make it difficult to benefit from the accumulated wisdom individual members bring to the table.

One very public split occurred when Walter Hewlitt, son of one of the founders, opposed a proposed merger of Hewlett Packard and Compaq. The internal disagreement became public as the sides engaged in public campaigns to win support for their positions. The decision was delayed for months and the entire incident undermined investor confidence in the board. Similar battles were called to attention in the split of Disney’s Board after the ouster of Michael Eisner, the governance crisis at Uber, and disagreements among Boeing’s directors on how the 737 Max issues were handled.

Once internal divisions become public, as in these cases, it becomes even more difficult to overcome them. Directors feel that their identity, values, and self-worth are associated with their position. Using what is known as “motivated reasoning,” logic goes out the window and is replaced with a drive to win the argument, thereby protecting one’s reputation and self-image. Coalitions back up those who share similar views while attacking their opponents. In other words, the issue becomes personal rather than remaining a subject that is open to different interpretations and healthy debate. Therefore, the chair or other members should take note of coalitions as they are forming and take steps to reinforce the importance of exploring issues from all angles to reach the best possible decisions on behalf of the organization and its shareholders.

To reshape informal alliances that have formed and restore optimal functioning, the chair can take the following steps.

1. Start by making the dynamics visible without assigning blame. People believe that coalitions are invisible when in fact they are often known to all. The chair can explain that forming coalitions is a natural thing to do and can even be helpful at times if they enable divergent views to be expressed that would otherwise remain unexpressed. However, coalitions can sometimes prevent individual members from expressing a point of view that is uniquely their own and important for the entire board to hear. Exposing coalitions to the light may be enough to cause them to whither.

2. Bolster egos. Remind people that the mission of the board is to help the organization perform at its best on behalf of the shareholders and that board members were recruited for their abilities to do just that. Each director brings a unique background and perspective that is worthy of the board’s attention. If individual board members are trapped in the views of their coalition, the chair could try calling on them to speak to their experience and share their wisdom, forcing them to think for themselves. Calling on people alternatively and acknowledging the value of their input can elevate everyone’s game.

3. Engage in cognitive restructuring. This sounds like it could be manipulative or some kind of therapy but it’s actually quite useful in business settings. At its core, the process involves digging deeper to better understand the thinking behind a statement that may on the surface seem to be either an exaggeration, distortion, or unsubstantiated opinion. Typically, the way it goes is for the chair to say something along the lines of, “That’s interesting. I’d like to understand more about the thinking behind that. Is there a particular situation or some data that you had in mind?” As the conversation unfolds, the chair maintains a curious attitude and offers other ways the situation could be approached or conceived and asks others to do the same. The idea is to turn a flat-out statement by a member of one coalition into an inquiry by the whole board, resulting in shared knowledge that is deeper and more nuanced. By asking members of different coalitions to share their thoughts, the emergent position of the board is one that all help to bring forward, increasing commitment to a different and hopefully better way of shared thinking.

Regardless of the approach used, it’s important to recognize that logic alone isn’t likely to change a coalition’s position. There needs to be engagement, discussion, some time for reflection, and the building of new thought patterns done in a way that criticizes no one and instead bolsters board member’s egos. Facts are useful but not as a cudgel to beat others down. Rather, they should be used to further ignite curiosity and to get people thinking about why the facts might be true. In the end, breaking down coalitions can be freeing and allow members a chance to being more of themselves to the conversation. Isn’t that what every board member should want?