Reading between the lines on conflict and inclusion
The 2012 Associations Now Volunteer Leadership Issue includes a feature by Mark T. Engle, FASAE, CAE, titled "Balanced Conflict, Better Decisions," which presents research that Engle conducted on how associations can best handle conflict in decision making. One of Engle's key findings is that conflict is best handled at the committee level rather than at the board level, and I think this says a lot about the importance of creating open and inclusive governance models in associations, which we discussed here back in November.
[Engle's feature article isn't published online; see page 26 of your print edition. However, in October we published a short article based on an interview with Engle.]
In the feature, Engle stresses that the importance of the consensus approach at the association board level runs opposite to what other research says about decision making in for-profit boards, that conflict at the board level improves decision making. A quote from Steve Smith, CAE, executive director and CEO of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, sums this up well:
"Fairness and due diligence are critical within [association] committee or board processes," says Smith. "If a process is seen as unfair, such as when all views are not heard, the focus is likely to be on personal issues or affective conflict."
In other words, in the association context, if the decision-making process is un-inclusive, conflict will arise precisely for that reason.
The association model is such that, by the time a decision reaches the board level, a strong consensus should already exist about the decision to be made. All the various stakeholders should already be on board because they should have already been asked for their input. If they weren't asked, they'll question the decision. In many cases, I suspect, conflict might present itself as healthy debate on the merits of the issue but in truth be rooted in personal or political conflict stemming from a sense of unfairness in the process.
This presents a deeper question: Is the decision-making process more important than the decision itself? For associations and their member-driven governance systems, the answer might be yes. The evidence in Engle's research on conflict and decision making suggests this, and it makes yet another case for more openness and inclusion in decision-making in associations. If you haven't read the comments from that post from November, go back now and read them. They offer some good ideas for meeting this challenge.
| | Permalink |
Comments
I believe most diversity & inclusion research indicates that expanding the pool of decision makers produces *more* conflict in the process of making the decision, but it's productive conflict that ultimately produces better decisions. It seems like Engle's research would indicate that the conflict is going to come regardless, but that deferring it to after the decision is made is just going to result in unproductive conflict (sniping and hurt feelings), rather than improving the decision itself.
Posted by: Elizabeth Engel | January 9, 2012 10:20 AM
Thanks Elizabeth. I think you've summed it up even better than I could. You're exactly right, that healthy conflict leads to better decisions, when it's embraced and facilitated in the right way. Researchers call healthy conflict "cognitive conflict" and the personal, political kind "affective conflict," and Engle gets deeper into those differences in his feature article. His findings showed that the timing and environment in which conflict is sought out is vital, and that the committee or taskforce level is most effective for letting healthy conflict over a decision play out, at least in the association context. Trying to do it all at the board level, in the cases he studied and surveys he conducted, seemed to more often lead to problems and affective conflict.
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | January 9, 2012 11:43 AM
We should stop thinking of conflict as something bad. And we should not fantasize about a healthy discussion always leading EVERYBODY to support the position of the majority.
Dissenting speech is often representative of the diverse attitudes of associations and it forces discussions to include many points of view.
Just because a committee approves something doesn't mean that every Board member has to vote for it. And those who vote "no," or speak in opposition, should not be dismissed as having "personal issues."
Striving for "consensus" often stifles minority opinion.
Posted by: David M. Patt, CAE | January 9, 2012 4:26 PM
I want to read the whole article before I weigh in fully, but I will mention my favorite definition of "consensus" from Michael Roberto, author of "Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes For an Answer." Consensus is NOT about agreement. Consensus is the combination of (a) a high level of shared understanding, and (b) a high level of commitment. Shared understanding is not always about total agreement, and that's really where conflict can be productive--in facilitating a much deeper shared understanding. I don't agree with your conclusion, but I really understand why you hold that view. I know why we disagree and you understand my viewpoint fully too. And we can commit to X actions moving forward. That's consensus.
Posted by: Jamie Notter | January 11, 2012 4:59 PM
Thanks David and Jamie. I agree on all points regarding consensus. It doesn't equate to unanimity, and it should be founded on shared understanding of all important information and views. Coincidentally, Mark Golden wrote an excellent blog post this week on the topic of consensus that is also worth a read: "Consensus is not a dirty word."
Another part of Engle's research that he writes about in the feature article (again, sorry that it's not available online) is about the extremely limited amount of time that most association boards have to meet and discuss issues in person. Often, the board simply doesn't have the time necessary for engaging in the type of healthy debate that builds shared understanding and consensus, and so that work has to happen in focused committees or task forces in order for the board to make its decisions.
It may also be important to note that Engle's research studied associations as they are, and it recommended practices for decision making that will fit within the realities that associations face, such as limited time and strong feelings of personal ownership among volunteer leaders. Decision making in an ideal environment might look a little different.
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | January 12, 2012 11:33 AM