Spend enough time around boards, and you begin to hear a familiar phrase: “We want harmony.”
On the surface, this sounds entirely reasonable. Who would proactively argue for conflict in the boardroom?
However, in practice, what many chairs and directors mean by harmony is the absence of visible disagreement.
And that, in our experience, is where the problem often begins. Because a lack of disagreement is rarely a sign that everything is working well. More likely, it signals hesitation, disengagement, or a quiet reluctance to speak up.
Real harmony isn’t silence; it’s the ability to disagree and still work well together.
Tension every board must manage
Disagreement is part of board life. Strategy choices, funding priorities, governance reforms and leadership decisions are not neutral topics. They invite different views which are shaped by experience, expertise and often strongly held beliefs.
The question for boards is not whether disagreements will arise. They always do. The real issue is what happens next.
Handled well, disagreement can sharpen thinking and improve decisions. Managed badly, they can become personal, draining energy and damaging trust in the process. The difference is critical.
When disagreement turns personal
Of course, not all conflict is the same. Some disagreements are about the work itself – what should be done, how, and why. Others are far more personal. You can usually hear the shift when it happens: “You always push this agenda,” “You don’t understand how this works,” “This is all your fault.”
At this point, the discussion has moved on from the issue and become about identity, ego and perceived intent. Once conversations move in that direction, things tend to unravel quickly. People stop listening, positions harden, and trust begins to erode.
We see this across a variety of sectors. In associations, it can surface during debates between elected representatives and professional management. In NGOs, tensions may emerge between mission-driven priorities and operational realities. While in corporate boards, it often appears during moments of pressure or scrutiny. In each case, once conflict becomes personal, performance suffers.
Types of disagreement boards need
However, there’s another kind of disagreement that high-performing boards actively encourage – disagreement about ideas.
It focuses on questions like: Are we asking the right questions? What assumptions are we making? Is there another way to approach this?
The tone is distinctly different as curiosity replaces accusation and challenge replaces criticism.
The goal isn’t to win, but to reach a better answer. We’ve seen this approach consistently in effective boards, including those leading large membership bodies and complex international organisations.
It was also a principle emphasised by the late David Clarke, co-founder and chairman of Macquarie Bank, who spoke to us at length about the importance of rigorous, but respectful, challenge.
The skill here lies in keeping the discussion focused on the issue rather than the individual. It’s simple in theory, but much harder in practice.
Constructive disagreement in action
When boards get this right, a few things tend to be true. Firstly, there’s a shared sense of purpose. Directors might disagree strongly on how to proceed, but there is no doubt that everyone is working towards the same goal.
In associations, this might mean advancing members’ interests. In NGOs, it’s about delivering impact. Either way, having a shared purpose creates a foundation for healthy debate.
Secondly, people challenge ideas, not each other. Language is important here. Effective chairs and directors are very careful about how they frame disagreement. They question assumptions, evidence and logic, but avoid questioning motives or competence.
Thirdly, there is a sense of joint problem-solving. Discussions aren’t about who’s right. They are focused on what the board might be missing.
The risk of getting along too well
One of the more subtle risks in governance is what can be called “comfortable agreement.” Boards can appear aligned, meetings run smoothly, and decisions are made quickly. This makes everything look efficient, but something important may be missing below it. Dissent.
This is how groupthink begins. It develops quietly, as directors hold back alternative views to maintain a sense of cohesion. Over time, however, the board becomes less questioning and curious, and more vulnerable to blind spots.
Boards often bring together individuals who share similar professional backgrounds or values, which can create strong alignment but can also reduce the diversity of perspectives needed for robust decision-making. The best boards recognise this risk and actively counter it.
Making space for different voices
Strong chairs do something that might feel counterintuitive: They invite challenge and ask for alternative views, encouraging quieter members to contribute. They are willing to face a degree of discomfort if it means the board can reach a better decision.
This isn’t about creating conflict for its own sake. It’s about ensuring important questions are asked before decisions are made.
In many association boards, where directors can be volunteers or elected representatives, creating this space is particularly important. Without it, some voices dominate while others withdraw.
The same is true in NGOs operating across different geographies and cultures. Diverse perspectives are essential, but only if they are genuinely heard.
Respect is not weakness
There is sometimes a misconception that respectful leadership is ‘soft.’ In reality, it is one of the most effective tools a chair or director can possess. Respect keeps conversations from escalating unnecessarily and allows people to express strong views without damaging relationships.
Importantly, respect does not mean avoiding difficult conversations. Boards still need to address underperformance, challenge decisions, and hold leadership to account. The difference lies in how those conversations are conducted.
There is sometimes a misconception that respectful leadership is ‘soft.’ In reality, it is one of the most effective tools a chair or director can possess.
The value of patience
Another quality that often goes overlooked in governance is patience. Boards today operate in environments which reward speed. Stakeholders expect quick decisions. Issues arrive rapidly and often with urgency attached.
But many of the challenges facing boards, such as strategy shifts, governance reform, and cultural change, do not resolve quickly. They require time, discussion, and often a degree of uncertainty.
We’ve seen this repeatedly in large organisations, including through the work of experienced chairs such as Sir John Parker, chairman of Laing O’Rourke, who has long emphasised the importance of staying the course, rather than reacting too quickly. Patience, in this sense, is about resisting the temptation to rush to closure when the issue requires deeper thinking.
Creating conditions for better conversations
At its core, leadership in the boardroom is about creating the right environment. Performance isn’t just a function of who sits around the table. It’s shaped by how those individuals interact. Do people feel able to speak openly, and are different perspectives welcomed? Can disagreement happen without relationships breaking down?
Where the answer is ‘yes,’ boards tend to function more effectively. Harmony isn’t the absence of disagreement. It’s the ability to handle disagreement well. Ultimately, perhaps it’s time to rethink what we mean by harmony in governance.
Professors Andrew Kakabadse and Nada Kakabadse are internationally recognised experts in leadership, governance and boardroom dynamics at Henley Business School.