Facing up to board conflict: a five-pronged path to conflict resolution.

THE ADVERTISEMENT MIGHT READ LIKE THIS: POSITION AVAILABLE. Fast-paced chamber of commerce must fill executive director position immediately. This nonprofit association is located in a rapidly growing, metropolitan area in the West. The incumbent will report to a volunteer board of highly successful business leaders. Salary commensurate with qualifications.

Such an ad appeared following the all-too-real firing of an executive director whose tenure lasted a mere 16 months. While one might surmise that the dismissal was the result of poor-performance, it was, in fact, the outcome of an unresolved conflict within the organization's board of directors. In the current economic climate, it's not unusual for association executives to fear that the day will arrive when the board decides that his or her performance does not meet the board's expectations. However, it is particularly disheartening when a board chooses to fire the executive director rather than resolve its own internal conflict among its members.

It is important to note that conflict within a board can be valuable and often aids in growth and change within an organization. But it is critical that the conflict be recognized, managed, and turned into a positive force in advancing the goals of the organization. By reviewing the chamber of commerce example, we see what happens when a board is without the tools necessary to turn potentially dangerous conflict into a constructive decision-making process.

My experience in association management and board governance--as well as my research on board conflict resolution--are the basis for the recommendations presented in this article. The research findings, published by the ASAE Foundation in 2001 in Leaders Working Together: Five Steps to conflict Resolution, provided the background for the development of a collaborative problem resolution model that would have greatly benefited the chamber of commerce in our example. Let's take a look at the background of the chamber's board conflict and what might have been done to resolve it.

Seeds of conflict

The former executive director of the chamber of commerce was caught in the middle of a tug of war involving the personal agendas of two forceful members of the chamber's board. While the strategic plan for the chamber called for the organization to focus on growing the local economy, there was fundamental conflict as to how that plan should be achieved. One board member, the general manager of a large hotel chain, was adamant that the chamber direct its resources to building a stronger tourism trade in the city. Another board member, the owner of a small business, vehemently believed that the way to grow the business community was to garner full support and financial resources for the development of biotechnology startup companies. The conflict's foundation was laid during the hiring process of the former director. The only compromise that either member had made during their two respective terms on the board was to hire the former executive director--since each had originally supported a different candidate.

Sixteen months before his termination the executive director had marched into his new position with high enthusiasm and unquestionable skills in administration, association management, and public relations. Conflict resolution skills--at least in terms of board relations--had not been a part of the articulated skill requirements, since the hiring committee and the board of directors considered themselves to be friends and colleagues sharing a common goal. Recognized socially and professionally as leaders of their business community, it seemed to the incoming director that they should be an expert group capable of solid decision making based on consensus.

With this false sense of cohesion, the executive director immediately began building a path for change in the business community, having been told that his primary job was to help improve the local economy and promote the chamber as a premier leadership organization and change agent. He was never told that he was expected to promote a specific industry sector--be it tourism, biotechnology, or anything else. This he eventually found out through escalating board conflict and development of two competing factions within his board of directors. The ultimate outcome: the advertisement for a new executive director.

Negative outcomes of unresolved conflict

With the departure of yet another executive director, the chamber was now faced with three critical problems.

1. Since the board terminated the executive director rather than deal with its own unresolved issues, the organization is again without leadership.

2. The hasty termination will cost the association thousands of dollars in executive search fees, not to mention board interviewing time.

3. The next executive starts the position faced with the same unresolved issues.

While this anonymous chamber of commerce is one example of the results of unresolved conflict, this scenario occurs repeatedly in trade, professional, and philanthropic organizations across the country. Such unattended conflict--in which there is no tolerance for any type of disagreement--will quickly become dysfunctional. Dysfunctional conflict, also referred to as unproductive or destructive conflict, is then almost certain to take on a personal tone and ultimately become a negative force for the organization.

A search for resolution

Results of my research provide some guidance in handling the type of conflict demonstrated by the chamber of commerce example. In 1998 I was awarded an ASAE Foundation grant to conduct research on conflict within the volunteer boards of directors leading nonprofit organizations. My research, association management experience, and extensive work in alternative dispute resolution provided the background for the development of the collaborative problem resolution model, which I refer to in my book as CPR. This model or process, designed specifically for resolving board conflict, illustrates a method of addressing conflict early in its development and turning the conflict into a productive stimulant for growth. CPR is a working model built upon alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which has been highly successful in resolving disputes in labor and management, environmental, business, and even professional sports situations. ADR is a four-step process that guides participants in a timely flow from initial negotia tion to mediation, then to conciliation, and finally to arbitration. Costly litigation in countless venues around the world has been circumvented because of the use of alternative dispute resolution models. ADR is generally employed when the participants in a dispute or conflict have determined that an external party must assist them in working through unresolved conflict and move them toward a resolution.

There are three notable differences between CPR and ADR:

1. CPR focuses on prevention and intervention at the earliest stage.

2. CPR is a simplified process recognizing that time factors are critical.

3. CPR is based upon a model of communication, whereas ADR is based on a legal model.

While both models have a significant yet particular place in conflict resolution, CPR is a process that can be employed before the conflict becomes dysfunctional and costly to the board as well as to the executive. Since a productive and effective board is composed of participants with different cultural and professional backgrounds, points of view, and leadership styles, it is inevitable that disagreements and conflicts will arise. And one of the priorities for both the chief elected officer and the staff executive is to make sure that a process is in place to deal with these situations. The consequence of failing to do so, as we have seen with the chamber example, can be disastrous.

Prevention or early detection

My research also identified seven indicators that problems might be brewing within the board. Clearly, there can be many more sources and forms of conflict than the chamber example provides. And while it is impossible to list all of the possible situations that might arise, one or several of the seven critical indicators are often visible in organizations that harbor negative conflict in need of attention. (See sidebar "Indicators for Intervention" for a summary of the critical indicators of conflict experienced by organizations.)

Ideally, prevention of unresolved conflict is the key, and problems within the board require immediate attention at the earliest point of detection.

Another valuable tool is a short self-audit or self-assessment tool. Answers to 10 questions can reveal that there are unresolved issues facing the board. (See sidebar "Assessing Board Discontent" for a summary of the questions in the self-audit.) The self-audit can be used as a board-orientation tool or as a mechanism specifically designed to assist the CEO or board chair unearth conflict that may be smoldering below the surface of board interactions. Of course, the questionnaire should be completed in confidence and no identifiers should be used on the form to indicate the individual completing it. Board members are much more likely to provide honest feedback if there is no fear of reprisal.

Conflict resolution, however, is not achieved simply by identifying festering issues and then asking that everyone get along. As I indicated in Leaders Working Together, "The cornerstone assumption remains: Collaboration does not mean we all have to agree, but we do have to maintain mutual understanding." Having a process in place to deal with inevitable conflict goes a long way in assisting a board in reaching that mutual understanding-and preventing destructive conflict. CPR is such a process. And, while I've seen the process work effectively, one of the first things a board must realize is that it takes time to move through the steps--and volunteer board members are often resistant to working through a seemingly lengthy process that may resolve an issue or problem within the board. In response to an interview question asked during my research, board members from around the country revealed: "Resolving disputes is a priority but dispute resolution is nor." Hence, board members agreed that disputes are a par t of the decision-making process but, nevertheless, they do not welcome a formal dispute-resolution process.

Therefore, when I introduce the notion of implementing a process to resolve a dispute, I ask participants to weigh the alternatives. In other words, how do they Feel about carrying the weight of a chronic problem through every decision-making exercise as compared to taking a little time away from the regular agenda to resolve the issue thereby pulling that particular weight from the board's shoulders? Generally, participants agree that it makes sense to resolve the issue--and they also discover that collaborative problem resolution is designed as a simplified model with volunteer boards in mind and is well worth the time it takes. Imagine how far ahead the chamber would be in terms of time and money if they had taken a few hours to step back and resolve the real problem at the root of its conflict.

Five steps to conflict resolution

Specific situations dictate whether it might be the chief staff officer, the board chair, or other members of the board who might recognize the existence of unresolved conflict and confront the issue in a way that results in the board taking action. However, once the board does agree to move forward, the first logical move necessary to carry out CPR is designating a segregated time and place to initiate the process. Working on dysfunctional conflict during the board meeting only enhances the chaos.

My recommendation is to set up a separate meeting strictly for handling the problem(s). A group could schedule a 90-minute session to resolve a problem and could accomplish resolution in that time period if three ground rules were upheld: (1) focus on the primary issue; (2) concentrate on resolution, not placing blame; and (3) center discussion on the problem resolution, not on other operational issues.

The CPR model is designed for use with or without a professional facilitator. Depending on the severity and depth of the issues facing the board, a professional facilitator may be preferable. An outside facilitator maintains the advantage of not being emotionally tied to the problem or entangled in the personalities of particular board members. Unlike the executive director or the chief elected officer, an outside facilitator may feel freer to dowse enough cold water on the group to wake them up and see the destruction being caused by clashing personal agendas. Clearly, budgetary restrictions may prevent a board from retaining a facilitator. In that case, board members may want to consider seeking out a volunteer from another organization or identifying someone on the board or staff who is not aligned with the parties in conclict who could lead an unbiased discussion.

Regardless of who leads the proceedings, the agenda for the collaborative problem resolution process can be outlined in a series of logical steps.

Accept and activate awareness. Many problems have the potential to be resolved at the conclusion of the first step, which is admitting that the board has a problem. In the case of the chamber, three factors assisted in turning the disagreement into dysfunctional conflict:

1. The board and the executive director would not acknowledge that the board was experiencing conflict nor accept responsibility that steps toward resolution needed to be implemented.

2. The board members found some sense of intermediate resolution in placing blame. Time and energy were wasted in trying to affix the blame on someone rather than to address and resolve the problems.

3. The board members were socially connected outside of the chamber, so acknowledging a conflict could be perceived as jeopardizing a social contact.

Had the chamber board used CPR, members would have allowed that the dysfunctional conflict was the responsibility of the entire board, not just the two individuals who disagreed on the goals of the chamber. In addition, placement of blame is not part of the process, since the goal is not winners or losers but rather resolving the problem to allow the members--and the organization--to move forward.

Aim. This step directs the problem to the whole board, with the facilitator directing participants to ask: "What do we want? What are we willing to do to get there?" Again, the chamber would have benefited greatly by focusing the entire board on the issue that needed resolution--and clarifying their ultimate goals.

Acknowledge. This is the step that will surface the pivotal issues as well as secondary issues that are draining the time and energy of the board members. It's useful at this point for the facilitator to ask participants for a list of all issues--related or unrelated to the perceived problem--that are impeding the flow of the board's discussions and work. I have seen that by merely listing issues, personal dilemmas, and other sore spots on the chart for all to view provides some natural understanding of the sources of the problem--and begins a shift toward resolution. It also makes an impression when the facilitator reminds the group that dysfunctional conflict is caused by lack of honesty and unwillingness to confront problems. This often makes it clearer that the problem belongs to the board and not to one particular person.

The chamber board's focus on this step would have brought out the pivotal issue for its organization: personal agendas masked as differing opinions on the program of work for the executive. Since the executive chose not to become entangled in the dispute, other members interpreted this action as lack of concern. Had the executive director had a chance to weigh in, that perception likely would have changed. In the end, the chamber would have used its time wisely by honestly seeking all the issues rather than merely venting.

Seek accountability and address issues.

This action allows the group to discover who the stakeholders are and how their involvement can be addressed. By looking at all individuals and groups that are affected by the unresolved issue, the board realizes that it is not only a few people on the board who will benefit from the resolution of the conflict--but a whole host of people who stand to benefit by problem resolution and redirection of effort to common goals.

Had the chamber board focused on this step, the group would have discovered that every member of the board was an internal stakeholder in the effective resolution of its problems, since the two disputing individuals had created factions within the board that increased the tension in attempting to resolve even the smallest of issues. Not only could personal agendas have been addressed and finally laid to rest, but the board would have noted its external stakeholders--the entire membership, vendors, local merchants, and others--whose work or businesses were being affected by the tourism-technology tug of war.

Award. It is important to reach closure and for the executive director or board chair (or perhaps both) to thank the participants for a worthwhile journey. Extra-large coffee mugs with the inscription "We did it!" or "Problem--NOT!" can be creative and amusing while also symbolizing that the process worked. I've purchased small boxes of chocolates with a thank-you card on top that says, "Success is sweet." Recognizing the old adage "Forest fires keep burning because of the underbrush not because of the large trees," I have awarded stuffed Smokey the Bear animals to participants with a note saying, "This fire is extinguished." Regardless of how you visibly demonstrate that the conflict has been resolved, the real reward is the opportunity to move forward in productive decision making.

Clearly, position announcements similar to the one advertised by our anonymous chamber of commerce are found everyday in newspapers and on Web sites anywhere in the world. Likewise, the potential for conflict among board members of nonprofit organizations comes with the territory. However, issues with the executive director's performance should not be used to disguise the negative outcomes of board conflict. By adopting a process that clarifies the points of conflict and by taking the time to resolve the issues that surface saves time for board members and possibly saves an executive director whose performance may, in fact, be good for the organization.

RELATED ARTICLE: Indicators for Intervention

Have you observed these indicators? If so, your board may need intervention through the use of a collaborative conflict resolution process.

* Long-term conflict. Often a problem within an organization persists over a considerable period of time to the detriment of the organization.

* Recycled or repetitive problems. Although a problem may not be ongoing, it is not uncommon for a particular problem to reoccur within an organization on a periodic basis without resolution.

* Personal attacks. It may be apparent that a conflict resolution plan is necessary when the board members or individual members engage in personal attacks on each other.

* Intensity of meetings. While passionate discourse can be healthy under the appropriate circumstances, continuous intensity in board meetings can sometimes be not only unproductive but also destructive.

* Deadlock. When it is obvious that the organization has reached an impasse on an important issue, conflict resolution may be necessary.

* Disengagement. One of the most subtle indicators of a troubled board is the disengagement, or gradual withdrawal of participation, of a board member or a subgroup of the board.

* Personal agendas. It is unrealistic to expect board members to leave their personal agendas outside board meetings. However, when personal agendas of certain board members begin to dominate meetings, intervention is needed.

Excerpted from Leaders Working Together: Five Steps to Conflict Resolution by Robert S. Adams (2001, ASAE Foundation). To order, call 888-950-ASAE or 202-371-0940, e-mail [e-mail], or visit www.asaenet.org/bookstore.

Robert S. Adams is executive director, Northern California Painting and Finishing Contractors Association, Emeryville. E-mail: [e-mail].