|
To retrieve the full article, click here or on the title above.
Here are some excerpts:
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.
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?
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.
|
|