As I was reading through the article, the industry that kept on coming
to my mind was the automotive industry. With the automotive
market constantly changing, in efforts to move away from
combustion engines and towards electric vehicles (EVs). As most can
assume, not every member on the board of an auto company, such as
Ford or Chevrolet, will be an expert with regards to the mechanics of
how a car functions--whether that be a combustion or electric engine.
Areas such as this can produce some side conversations where board
members are trying to fully understand some of the new innovative
ideas that the engineers are coming up with for new models. Keeping
in mind, this is just one specific example as I am sure there are other
topics that produce side conversations like current events affecting
the automotive industry or competitor analyses being discussed
during a board meeting.
All that said, there are most certainly positives and negatives to side
conversations such as these. Some of the positive aspects in this
situation is that individuals get the opportunity to get fully briefed on
the information from varying perspectives of other people in the
meeting, and this type of communication encourages feedback from
the topics discussed and promotes collaboration among the staff to
better accomplish their goals. On the other hand, some of the
negatives to these side conversations is that the experts on the topics
being discussed may not be involved in the conversations, which can
result in poor information flow among the board. Also, these side
conversations can bear too much weight on the opinions of higher
executive rank rather than their expertise (Gardner & Peterson,
2019).
In my opinion, I think side conversations in the board room can
impact internal and external stakeholders greatly through biases and
partial information. The opinion of higher executives/board members
tends to carry more weight than someone who just joined the
board/company. Ideas and action items shared by someone of higher
status can sway board members to think differently than they initially
did. Furthermore, some of these side conversations may lead to half-
truths or incomplete information being communicated, which
ultimately negatively affects the ability for a board to make good
decisions if not all of the vital information has been discussed. In
result, the board is in a losing position if they must try to make the
best decision for the organization without every detail present.
Public service is very important to me, and even though nonprofits
are not really an "industry" there are certain issues more common to
nonprofits than for-profit entities. As nonprofits are not united
around the goal of generating profit, they are driven by purpose and
this can change how board members interact with each other. They
may have different ideas of how to best advance the interests of the
organization, or even different ideas of what those interests are; the
analogy of "herding cats" comes to mind! Nonprofit board members
may come from a wide diversity of backgrounds, ages, and careers.
Side conversations among nonprofit board members can be very
helpful for forging connections and getting to know each other, which
is necessary to build trust and collaboration. However, side
conversations can also leave out other board members and create
distrust as well. "When board members feel left out, it undermines
trust. It is easy for directors who are not seen as part of the “inner
circle” to be excluded from informal side conversations. Not
surprisingly, women get shut out most often." (Gardner, 2019) Board
members who share common views may align and steer board
activities toward their preferred goals to the detriment of others. Side
conversations can be used effectively along with an "annual review,
when the group evaluates how it’s handling its other core work, such
as routine risk assessment, communication with executives, and
reporting requirements." (Gardner, 2019)
The National Council of Nonprofits’ Board of Directors adopts an
annual Public Policy Agenda, and the 2023 agenda includes
government collaboration, more specifically streamlining and
reforming the existing flawed grants and contracting systems.
Conversing with external stakeholders, such as government officials,
is critical for nonprofit board members, but it is important to present
a united perspective to governments and not get bogged down in side
conversations which fracture board objectives. If nonprofits are not
united for common goals, it will be nearly impossible to make changes
to the grant system which can hamper organizations with fewer
resources. I appreciated that the HBR article included
recommendations to make side conversations more effective, such as
creating common ground and drawing out expertise.
References
Gardner, H. K., & Peterson, R. S. (2019). Back Channels in the
Boardroom. Harvard Business Review, 97(5), 106–113.
"2023 Public Policy Agenda." National Council of Nonprofits.
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/public-policy-agenda
Gardner, H. K., & Peterson, R. S. (2019). Back Channels in the
Boardroom. Harvard Business Review, 97(5), 106–113.
