14 Jun Why the best boards aren’t afraid to disagree

When people talk about successful boards the word ‘harmony’ often makes an appearance.

This sounds like a positive thing. After all, nobody wants constant arguments around the boardroom table.

However, according to Professors Andrew and Nada Kakabadse of Henley Business School, real board effectiveness isn’t just about everyone agreeing. It involves creating an environment where people can challenge others’ ideas openly, disagree professionally, and still leave the room pulling in the same direction.

This is the central message of their latest thought leadership article, appearing in Boardroom Global, produced with editorial support from More Fire PR.

When debate becomes personal

Drawing on many years of international research and practical experience advising boards across the corporate, public and voluntary sectors, the professors argue that disagreement itself is rarely the problem. In fact, some of the strongest boards actively encourage it.

The difficulty starts when discussions stop being about the issue and become about the individual.

Many directors will recognise the warning signs: Debate becomes personal, people start questioning motives instead of ideas, positions harden, trust starts to erode, and the quality of decision-making inevitably suffers.

By contrast, high-performing boards ask different questions.

Have we looked at this from every angle? What assumptions are being made? Is there another way of approaching the issue?

The objective isn’t about winning the debate, it’s to reach the best possible decision.

The article also highlights a less obvious governance risk: Boards that appear to get along all the time.

Experienced chairs make space for quieter voices

On the surface, meetings where everyone agrees may look efficient, particularly given that decisions are made quickly and little appears contentious. But this apparent harmony can sometimes mask something much less healthy. Directors might simply be holding back alternative views, or choosing not to challenge the consensus.

Over time this approach can lead to groupthink, reducing the diversity of opinion that boards depend on when making important strategic decisions.

The authors further argue that experienced chairs understand this balance well, making space for quieter voices, inviting alternative viewpoints and recognising that a little discomfort during discussion is preferable to discovering, months later, that an important question was never asked.

Respect also plays a central role throughout the article.

Pause and gather more evidence

That doesn’t mean avoiding difficult conversations or failing to challenge poor performance. Quite the opposite. Boards still need to hold executives to account and tackle difficult issues head on. The difference lies in how those conversations take place.

The piece additionally reflects on the growing pressure facing modern boards to respond quickly to increasingly complex challenges. While speed has its place, the professors suggest that strategy, governance reform and organisational culture rarely benefit from rushed decisions. Sometimes the best course of action is to pause, gather more evidence and think things through.

Ultimately, the article makes a simple but important point.

Strong boards are defined by their ability to handle it well, not by the absence of disagreement. For organisations operating in increasingly complex environments, that’s a distinction worth remembering.