Getting the balance right between allocating sufficient time to discuss the issue, but not too much, can be a tricky task for any chair, says Sir Clive Booth.
I was in a meeting recently, the business of which was dominated by one person – and this was not the chair. When the person concerned first spoke, I thought to myself that here was someone with interesting things to say, but when it became clear that this person was determined to be the first to speak, and speak at length to the exclusion of others round the table, I looked in vain for a firm intervention from the chair.
Exercising discipline over extremely voluble trustees and, conversely, encouraging the shy to have their say is a tricky task for all chairs. If you are fortunate enough to have board colleagues with wide experience of board service, their sensitivity to the interplay of the discussion and willingness to listen carefully to what others have to say usually means that their contributions will be measured and proportionate.
It is often the person who has limited experience – even though they may have served on one board for a long time – who can find it difficult to know when to shut up. Some even give the impression that the quality of a contribution is measured solely by its length. The chair has to find diplomatic ways of counselling such cases: a quiet word in private after the meeting may well do the trick. For persistent offenders, a natural opportunity to deal with the problem arises if you have an informal annual or biennial meeting with each trustee to discuss their contribution to the board.
The opposite problem can occur with the persistently ‘silent’ trustee. Silence is of course no bad thing if the person really has nothing to say. But, some people lack the confidence to speak up and need to be encouraged. An indication of this is when someone approaches you at the end of the meeting and offers interesting views that could and should have been contributed in the meeting itself. To build their confidence, one needs to say something like: “How interesting, I’m sure the board would have been pleased to have heard your comments.” Again, the informal annual review, if you have one, can be an opportunity to encourage the diffident to speak up.
When really important and difficult issues come to the board, it helps if the chair says at the outset that everyone will be expected to contribute to the discussion. I like to ‘go round the table’. Someone may say that they do not wish to contribute but this is quite rare on major issues. While some chairs shrink from having votes at board meetings, once a thorough discussion has taken place, a show of hands can be a good way of achieving closure – and I don’t mind being in the minority.
It’s hard to have a good discussion if members come to the meeting poorly prepared. Some issues are necessarily complicated and it may not be clear to the chair whether the real problem is that some members have not understood the issues rather than not having read the papers. This is of course forgivable where the issues are complex and perhaps highly specialised.
Priming trustees ahead of meetings
If the chair anticipates this problem in advance of the meeting, it can be useful to have primed a trustee known to be on top of the topic to lead off the discussion. It may be worth agreeing with your board that different members will take the lead on such things as buildings, public relations, health and safety, human resources and so on.
Fatigue is the enemy of good decision-making. There are many reasons why meetings may drag on to a stage where energy and intellect are flagging. A timed agenda can be the answer as it encourages a degree of self-discipline.
Sir Clive Booth is chair of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust
