Championing the 'tough issues': who is better at it--men or women directors? We have an answer.

• Author: McInerney-Lacombe, Nancy
• Position: BOARD DIVERSITY

CHAMPIONING "TOUGH ISSUES" in the boardroom--putting on the table the issues that remain uncomfortably under the surface and generally are separate and distinct from the normal board agenda--is critically important to how boardroom deliberation is conducted. Are there differences in how men and women board members take it upon themselves to put the tough issues up for discussion? Yes.

Insights from our recent in-depth study of 22 senior corporate directors in Canada--11 men and 11 women--shed light on the "black box" of board behavior. Importantly, the study offers a gendered perspective on the dynamics of how directors tackle the tough issues. The boardroom experience of our sample, while centered in Toronto, included representation across Canada and the U.S. The majority of the interviewees were in their fifties and sixties. All participants had multiple board experience, with eight being current or past CEOs. In 30% of the cases, interviewees hold or had held board seats on the most prestigious and established boards in Canada. In a nutshell, this group was a powerhouse.

CEO and senior team suitability, management style, competency, and compensation accounted for 68% of the 21 "tough issues" as pinpointed by our sample group. Other issues related to strategy, disclosure, and company sale. In general, in the tight collegial atmosphere of a board, breaking with the group to put a tough issue on the table was very difficult. Directors needed certain prerequisites before championing; also, once an issue was on the table, relied on a set of factors that supported or, if absent, stalled engagement on the issue.

Time and time again, however, directors that did break from the group to tackle the tough issue and were successful in engaging the group (notwithstanding copious landmines) were able to improve board performance and increased their own personal status within the group. Most interestingly, women on the board were the more likely champions, raising twice (14) the number of issues than men (7).

What--and why--was the difference?

The need for courage

First off, while both men and women directors championed very tough issues, no matter how rough the anticipated reception, they did so because it was the right thing to do. Their differences, however, were striking. Women came to the board exceptionally well prepared; this fact was acknowledged by their male colleagues. But women spoke of needing the courage to raise the tough issue in a room full of men. Men were more audacious in their championing of tough issues--this is, they were on the board, thus they had the right to raise the issue. For men, it was more about their legitimacy and expertise than about courage. Also, women were very mindful of the atmosphere at the board. Armed with the facts, women watched, anticipated the coalitions and responses, and used their mindfulness to time their introduction of the issue. Men did not evidence this level of introspection or strategy. They did not need to read the room; they represented the room.

The level of trust at the board moderated the difficulty of the reception to the issue. Underpinning this trust was how well board members knew each other and what they had been through together. Women spoke of trust differently than men, with women describing a professional trust that their colleagues would do their homework on the issue and ultimately vote to do the right thing. Trust for men was more relational. They knew these guys. They knew which way they would vote. Men described trust in a more personal, almost familial, way.

Inclusion verses exclusion at the board was very important to women. Women were not part of the "in crowd." Some women did not care. Not being invited to join the men for drinks after the board meeting was a non-event. The big worry for women over exclusion meant not being acknowledged or listened to. Women wanted their issue heard and debated. It was about the business, and only about...