The article "Back Channels in the Boardroom: How to Prevent Side Conversations Between
Directors from Blocking Progress" emphasizes the significance of good communication inside the
boardroom as well as the possible negative influence of director side chats. Side talks are private
discussions or exchanges that take place at board meetings, frequently with the exclusion of other
members. We will look at the possible influence of side talks on an unrelated industry of personal
or professional interest in this examination. I picked the renewable energy business for this
assignment.
Positive:
Collaboration and Innovation: Side talks in the renewable energy business may foster creativity and
collaboration. Directors may engage in informal talks during board meetings to offer fresh ideas,
upcoming technology, and industry trends. These interactions can spawn inventive solutions,
propel R&D efforts, and eventually contribute to the improvement of renewable energy systems.
Networking and Collaboration: Side chats can give possibilities for networking and collaboration.
Directors may meet with external stakeholders like as technology vendors, government
organizations, or academic institutes to propose prospective partnership. These collaborations can
improve the industry's access to resources, knowledge, and money, hence promoting growth and
development.
Sharing Knowledge: Side chats can be a good venue for directors to share expertise. Experienced
directors may provide their colleagues, particularly those who are new to the sector, insights and
direction. This exchange of expertise may aid in decision-making, enhance governance processes,
and boost the overall performance of renewable energy enterprises.
Negative:
Lack of Transparency: Excluding specific board members from side dialogues might create an
environment of restricted openness. This can result in information asymmetry, in which certain
directors are privy to critical talks or decisions while others are kept in the dark. Transparency may
erode confidence, create conflicts of interest, and stymie productive decision-making processes in
the sector.
Side discussions Can Lead to Decision-Making Silos: Side discussions can lead to decision-making
silos, in which a subset of directors develops alliances and makes decisions outside of the official
boardroom environment. Such compartmentalized decision-making might exclude varied
viewpoints, hinder meaningful debate, and perhaps ignore crucial variables or hazards. This can
lead to inefficient strategic decisions in the renewable energy business, hurting overall company
development and competitiveness.
Stakeholder Alienation: Stakeholder alienation can occur when side dialogues exclude external
stakeholders such as investors, employees, or community members. Stakeholders may feel
abandoned, ignorant, or detached when crucial talks and decisions take place outside of the
boardroom. This can erode stakeholder trust, undermine investor confidence, and harm the
industry's brand, making it more difficult to attract investment and public support.
From experience I would have to say most of the work gets done in sidebar conversations
whereas the formalized meeting can at times be more for semantics and or keeping face. In this
manner I agree with Gardner and Peterson (2019), when they explain these sidebar conversations
“can be enormously valuable” (p.1). Although they can be uses for various means, if done in an
appropriate manner they can greatly add to efficiency and effectiveness of work processes.
One of the work environments that I have dealings with is legislative sessions of state government.
Prior to providing testimony before a committee, it is advisable to establish a repour or as
explained by Gardner and Peterson (2019), “forge personal relationships” with individual members
is a major benefit of these side conversations. A second positive is that it allows for less duplicated
information to be presented at the formal session. Having sidebars with other labor groups, or
lobbyists can enable an efficient use of time, laying the groundwork for a collaborative argument
or presentation of information. A negative can easily be the undermining of trust between ground
members and creating biased information. I do think much of the sidebars in this environment are
done in good faith but being a political realm, it can certainly be easy to see only one side of the
story being purported as fact and can lead to recency bias or anchoring effect.
For both internal and external stakeholders it presents a more forgiving and comfortable
environment to present ideas and open dialogue that is not public record. Public speaking
especially in a legal environment where a misspoken or misinterpreted word can have
compounding consequences can be very unnerving. These sidebars can enable a more fluid and
expressive conversation. This is especially important for sensitive information that needs to be
vented further before full public disclosure. On the opposite side of things, I can see the same
issues of trust for external and internal stakeholders not directly involved in the conversations.
Gardner, H. K., & Peterson, R. S. (2019). Back Channels in the Boardroom. Harvard Business Review,
97(5), 106–113.
