Trusting & Verifying
Three books on a table. The top book is “The Highly Sensitive Person,” by Dr. Elaine N. Aron.
In a Negotiating context, multi-party is much more complex than one-on-one. This logic suggests that, in a mission-driven or not-for-profit organization, for the Executive Leader will have a more straightforward relationship with the Board Chair than with the entire Board. That relationship can be instrumental in ensuring that wise decisions emerge when the entire group engages on strategic issues.
A common structure for critical thinking (and decision making under complexity) is to follow certain steps, which will include:
Understanding/identifying the problem;
Clarifying the decision criteria;
Identifying options; and
Evaluating each option against the pre-determined criteria.
The logic is compelling and, if followed, a wise decision will emerge every single time, theoretically. The effectiveness of this structure will depend on the extent to which individual thinking, interpersonal relations, and group dynamics work to support or hinder the resulting decisions.
TRUSTING MYSELF (INDIVIDUAL):
The critical thinking structure imposes reasoned impartiality by slowing our individual process of reaching a conclusion. The problem one initially sees contains a hidden supporting logic that even we don’t see. This is why the legal system uses caution in assessing eye witness testimony, and why “blind auditions” are credited with reducing gender-based discrimination in symphonies. Convincing ourselves to keep looking to “better understand” the problem takes patience. With strategic decisions, spending time understanding the problem is much more effective than jumping to a conclusion.
Surfacing decision criteria takes more time that relying on something “sounding good” or “making sense to me.” Vetting an option against pre-established criteria is the whole reason behind the blind auditons: How an elite musician looks, makes their way on stage, holds their instrument, etc., are not reasons to select (or not) for a symphony position. As always, trust (especially trust in oneself) makes things quicker, and quicker often feels good.
TRUSTING EACH OTHER (INTERPERSONAL):
Like the popular literary device, we are all “untrustworthy narrators” of the world around us. Admitting such untrustworthiness to ourselves can be humbling, however pointing this out to your ED or Board Chair could be very harmful to a working relationship, which may already be developing. Structural elements can also play a role in this relationship, as well. We often find an imbalance of expertise that tilts toward the Executive Leader for operations. Board Chairs or other Board Members may have longer tenures with the organization, which means that they have more “historical expertise” formed by direct experience.
Note: Such policies as Role Descriptions and Term Limits can offer some counter to these elements, but such imbalances will persist.
In creating a working relationship, we can imagine a reserve of trust that has an optimal level of both quantity and quality:
Too light: We spend too much time verifying (e.g. “Maybe I should talk to her myself.”);
Too fragile: We fear that verifying will erode trust further (e.g. “Can’t you just trust me to do my job?!);
Too much: We are not holding each other accountable in checking our individual untrustworthiness.
The just-right level carries a mutual belief or understanding that some degree of “verify” is both warranted and necessary. This entails a shared mindset that contains an appreciation for checking (e.g. We said noses in, right?) rather than an irritation of meddling and micromanaging (e.g. Hey! Keep those fingers out!). This relationship should be such that the Executive Leader invites the nosiness, tolerates some fingers, and works with the Board Chair to keep unwelcome digits at bay.
TRUSTING EACH OTHER (GROUP):
Group interactions, especially collaboration around a decision, are fascinating and complex. For an Executive Leader, fostering trust with one’s Board can increase efficiency in communication, as well as provide appropriate influence in guiding decisions. We can exploit a psychological bias known as “social proof” by currying early support from some in the group in order to influence others (e.g. all those people can’t be wrong, right?).
Again, policy documents can help. Consider the importance of these two parties engaging in conversation about the nuances of that language. For example:
On Matters of Trust: The Executive Leaders takes some responsibility for fostering trust and developing credibility with each the Board (and each member). Challenges in this vein can be shared with the Board Chair, who can provide assistance and guidance in that effort by working with the Executive Leader, as well as with individual Board members.
On Degrees of Verify: The Board should be comfortable probing and exploring operational details, within reason. The Executive Leaders can work with the Board Chair should different interpretations of “within reason” become a challenge. The Board Chair, again, can work liaise between these groups to establish workable ranges, while ensuring sufficient Board oversight.
Parting Thoughts:
The thinking on this is about encouraging these two individuals to figure out how best to work together. Policy can play a role, but why look for better policy guidelines, when we can get a better agreement of the spirit of this relationship? Personal development can play a role, but why provide training in skills for “Difficult Conversations” when we can make these conversations easier to have?