When board members talk through their teams: how to stop the conflict

How to tell that board members are talking through other people

The marketing director asks the team to launch a campaign. The finance vice-president emails the accounts department to say the budget should be frozen. Neither speaks directly to the other. As a result, employees try to work out among themselves whose instruction takes priority, and every new message becomes ammunition in the dispute. At board meetings there is an apparent calm, but further down the organisation chaos is growing.

This behaviour does not always stem from personal dislike. Sometimes board members have different priorities and have not agreed who is to settle the dispute. At other times, they avoid direct confrontation so as not to damage the relationship or lose face. Their reports then become messengers, negotiators and informal arbitrators. It is worth recognising the signs: conflicting instructions, parallel agreements, a recurring “I need to check with my side” and no one willing to put their name to the final decision.

A dispute about the solution can be useful; personal attacks do harm

A debate between two board members about whether to invest more in the product or protect liquidity can help the company see risks that one person had missed. It is worse when the conversation turns into judgements about character: “Marketing isn’t thinking about costs again” or “Finance always blocks everything.” At that point the two sides stop testing arguments and start defending their departments. It becomes harder to accept a valid point, because it is taken as an attack.

A 2012 meta-analysis by de Wit, Greer and Jehn distinguished between task, relationship and process conflicts. Its findings do not, however, allow you to conclude that every substantive disagreement improves performance. That depends on the conditions and on whether a task conflict turns into a personal one. For a board, the practical lesson is simple: you can argue hard about assumptions, data and risk, but it is worth consciously keeping this separate from judging a colleague’s intentions. When the conversation is about the goal, it is easier to end it with a decision.

Why sending messengers seems easier than talking

A direct conversation with another board member can seem difficult. It means admitting that your goals conflict, revealing your own constraints and being prepared for pushback. Passing a message through a more junior director can seem more convenient: “Tell them I don’t accept that deadline.” There is no need to listen to counter-arguments on the spot, and the sender keeps more distance. But the difficulty doesn’t go away. It shifts to the person who has to carry out the instruction and is afraid of crossing either side.

Over time, a direct report may take on the role of advocate for their own division. Instead of asking what the best decision for the company would be, they gather arguments against the other department. A mechanism develops in which the lack of conversation at the top reinforces divisions further down. There is no need to assume bad intentions on anyone’s part. It is enough that the company has no established way of clarifying conflicting expectations. Restoring direct contact is often more important than refining yet more reporting channels.

What passes from a board conflict to the delivery teams

Employees feel a board dispute through shifting priorities, approvals that are withdrawn and unclear deadlines. A project manager doesn’t know whether to order a service, because the person responsible for the budget objects while the business sponsor is pushing for immediate delivery. People start protecting themselves by documenting every instruction and avoiding decisions of their own. Instead of pursuing their goals, employees waste time working out whose expectations matter more.

Research on team conflict and on collaboration in top management teams supports the view that how leaders work together matters for how an organisation functions. Not every loss of productivity should be attributed solely to board disputes, however. It can also be caused by a lack of resources and poorly designed processes. That is why it is worth gathering specific cases: which decision was put on hold, how many times priorities changed, who bore the cost. This helps you talk about management, rather than gossip about relationships between directors.

How to have the difficult conversation before the dispute reaches the departments

Instead of corresponding through their reports, two board members can arrange a short conversation on a single topic: “We need to decide whether we launch the campaign in December at this budget level.” Each starts by setting out their goal, then the risks and the conditions under which they could accept a solution. The most important questions are: “What do we really disagree about?”, “Which assumptions can we test?” and “Who has the mandate to decide if we can’t reach agreement?”

The aim is not to force agreement. Two legitimate goals may remain in conflict. What is needed then is a decision by the person or body with the authority to make it, with a clear rationale and a statement of what the rejected option would cost. If the CEO chooses a solution, they should do so deliberately, not just to cut the dispute short. It is good practice to set a date after which the decision will be reassessed in the light of results. This lets board members continue to differ while their teams work to a single, up-to-date instruction.

Teams need one decision and a simple escalation route

After the board has talked, it isn’t enough to announce: “That’s been agreed.” Employees need to know exactly what they are doing, from when, what constraints apply and who settles any new disputes. For example: “We’re launching the campaign on a limited scale until 15 December. Marketing is responsible for the results; finance signs off any spending above the agreed threshold. If there’s a conflict between the deadline and the budget, the project sponsor and the CFO will decide together within two days.”

It is also worth making it clear that employees are not expected to choose between conflicting instructions or to act as go-betweens in disputes between board members. A project manager can say: “I have two different instructions. I need a single decision from someone with the right mandate before I commit any spending.” This is not insubordination; it is making sure there is a clear division of responsibility. When the rules are consistent, employees can focus on their work instead of trying to read the mood at the top of the organisation.

A board can disagree – indeed, it should be able to talk openly about conflicting priorities. The problem starts when board members, instead of talking to each other, shift the conflict onto their direct reports. A direct conversation, a defined decision-making mandate and a single message for departments reduce unnecessary tension and protect teams from conflicting instructions.

How Empatyzer helps board members talk without intermediaries

A board member can describe to Em a situation in which another director regularly voices objections through employees, leaving teams with contradictory instructions. Em will help separate facts from interpretations, prepare an invitation to a direct conversation and put together questions about priorities, risk and the right to make the decision. If both managers belong to the same organisation, relationship tips in Empatyzer can help them understand differences in how each makes decisions, how much control each needs and how each reacts to open disagreement. An analysis of organisational culture can also show whether the tension is linked to different expectations around hierarchy and autonomy. It does not, however, give access to other people’s private conversations, nor does it decide for the board who is right. Em can also help prepare a single, consistent message for the departments concerned and a response to the next conflicting instruction. That way, the difficult conversation stays between the people authorised to make decisions, and employees don’t have to act as messengers in a dispute they cannot resolve themselves.