Consensus bad, turbulence good
Just a quick thought based on a conversation I was part of a few weeks ago. In that conversation, there was a general consensus that the goal of a board meeting--the ultimate board meeting, if you will--is one that sails smoothly.
The people in the discussion had a lot more experience running boards than I do, but my position was: What's the point? Of course you don't want pandemonium. But I want my volunteers, the ones entrusted to chart the course for my organization, to wrestle with the hard issues. You can't struggle with difficult issues and expect smooth sailing. I don't want consensus. I want there to be various opinions, and I want those opinions debated out in the open, and I want people to have to vote on a course of action (or recommendation), and I don't expect that vote to be unanimous.
So my ideal board or volunteer meeting, then, isn't smooth sailing. It's one where tension is an integral part. It then becomes the role of the chair and/or staff to ensure that the tension is used creatively and constructively.
Smooth sailing? No thanks. Give me the choppy seas--you're doing more and having more fun, not to mention it's a choppy-sea world.
UPDATE: As was pointed out in the comments, Jamie Notter has an excellent recent post on consensus. I strongly encourage readers to check it out.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Funny, Jamie had a great metaphor for this exact kind of situation the other day - Are Your Meetings Like Golf or Hockey?
Posted by: Maddie Grant | April 15, 2011 2:02 PM
Choppy seas are fine if all sailors are rowing in the same direction. Board meetings, however, can take on a monsoon style if board members bring personal agendas and advance those rather than seeking strategic (see Coerver's article in April 2011 Associations Now) solutions for advancing the association's goals and objectives. Common purpose and aligned leadership can be active, dynamic and still support mission.
Posted by: Amanda Batson | April 15, 2011 3:17 PM
Seeking a unanimous vote is one of the biggest problems, Scott. Lots of Boards try to avoid divided opinion because they think it displays an inability to work together.
But people can disagree - and vote against each other - while still rowing in the same direction.
Posted by: David M. Patt, CAE | April 15, 2011 5:58 PM
Thanks Maddie -- I'm behind in my Google Reader and hadn't read his post. Thanks for pointing it out to me, and now I'm a little embarrassed.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | April 16, 2011 11:27 AM
I'm going to jump uncomfortably deep in the metaphor here, and it feels a little absurd. But I don't want my board to be rowing at all. They're not sailors. Collectively, they're the captain.
Presumably the organization has a goal in mind, to get to port maybe. That's the mission, and doesn't really change. Deciding how to get there is the board's job. If you have an expectation of smooth-running board meetings, and always plan your meetings that way, then you're not doing a good job of preparing your organization. The environment you're operating in is simply more chaotic than that. Having a board that knows how to deal with rough water gives you a tremendous advantage. And the point is, there will be hard alternatives to consider -- should you go around the storm and take longer, or risk the storm to reach port sooner? Making that decision then tells your sailors to use their skill to carry it out.
Ok, if I drop any more comments, I'm going to leave the metphor out of it as it's just getting silly now.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | April 16, 2011 12:04 PM
For some decisions, I find having a wider scale of agreement available for consideration often improves on some of the shortcomings of a consensus-only based approach. An excellent scale is available in the Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making by Sam Kaner, and it is compared with another approach on this website: http://stevenmsmith.com/gradient-of-agreement/
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | April 19, 2011 7:28 AM