How do boards take decisions? Is it through the preparation and pre-circulation of weighty board papers, followed by powerful PowerPoint presentations? Or maybe decisions follow board discussions, energised by an early endorsement from the chair of the meeting?

Perhaps there is a sense that the argument is so compelling that you, as a non-executive, would not want to waste the board’s valuable time posing stray questions. Or, indeed, you don’t want to run the risk of not being seen to be anything other than fully supportive of the board’s emerging consensus.

Discussion may be useful, but does the board dynamic, as facilitated by the chairing of the meeting, really result in thorough debate? It is too easy to dismiss debate as being too stuffy or formal, or as too personally risky for those prepared to challenge the prevailing view.

Debate will not feature much on any board compliance checklist. It would be seen by many as more suited to a bygone era of the analogue world, rather than the instant digital world of always on, email traffic, instant messaging, streamed information, social networking and AI.

However, the evidence from board performance reviews suggests that constructive debate underpins good board process and decision making. And that the lack of it can be a problem. For instance, it would be hard to conclude that the Post Office board fully debated its Horizon system decisions (other corporate governance disasters are available).

The NED City Debates

For some years now, I have been chairing The NED City Debates. Formal motions have explored— inter alia—executive pay, women in the boardroom, NEDs’ contribution to profits, board performance evaluation, holding the executive to account, diversity and effective chairing.

In adopting the debate format, we see a parallel between a debate and good boardroom process. Each requires careful listening, respect for the opposing view and an atmosphere of constructive challenge to allow insights to fully develop.

The latest debate addressed the motion ‘This House believes good chairman are born, not made’, as we attempted—through the wording of this and all the motions—to add some edginess to the argument. Some said we couldn’t use the wording on the basis that no one should use the word “chairman” any more and that it was obvious that the pursuit of diversity required nurture from training, rather than assuming nature had provided all to the chosen few.

The motion was proposed by former Sunday Times NED to Watch, Page Nyame. A former president of the Cambridge Union and now a criminal barrister, she relished dissecting the wording and layers of meaning.

Shades of grey

From an indicative vote of 90% rejecting the motion to 50% abstaining post-debate, the nuances and shades of grey were revealed and recognised. A palpable experience like this is equally possible in the boardroom as well as the debating chamber.

In a formal debate, the debaters’ personal views may or may not coincide with the side of the motion for which they argue. Nonetheless, good decisions and ideas do emerge through the careful examination of alternative views. The use of language to broaden—rather than prescribe—discussion is encouraged so as to foster the right conversations. The process seeks to ensure quieter voices are heard and the ‘left field’ is not ignored.

The debate format is a refreshing change from the ubiquitous conference panel. Without PowerPoints, presentations or props of any kind, we rely upon words alone and the passion, sensitivity and tone of their delivery to win the argument.

What do you think? Perhaps you feel this would be all too fussy for your board… or might the point be worth debating?

Barry Gamble chairs the NED City Debates and is on the editorial advisory board of Board Agenda

The next NED City Debate, in association with Board Agenda, will debate the motion ‘This House believes boards struggle to identify and manage risk’. It will be held on Wednesday 11 September 2024.