What Does Your Board Do When Consensus Isn’t Possible?

Most family foundations tend to conduct their grantmaking by continuing the discussion until everyone either agrees or at least agrees to commit to a decision. This approach can be time consuming, but rewarding.  What happens, though, when you can’t all agree? What do you do when one director is passionately in support of and another is vehemently against a grant decision?

For 30 years I have sat in hundreds of board meetings with dozens of foundations. Some have been formal “Roberts Rules” affairs where a skilled board chair leads the members through a clearly delineated docket, with each decision reached and motion resolved through a simple majority. Others have been held around a dining room table where no one person really needs to be in charge because the group functions organically, with leadership changing hands as needed.

However, one thing all of these boards have in common is disagreement. Rare is the board that never wrestles with differing points of view and even serious conflict. A key to effective governance is addressing conflict and managing the discussion so that discord does not derail a decision. Not only can cordial disagreement be healthy, it can often lead to truly innovative grantmaking.

There are many approaches to addressing disagreement, other than avoidance. All start with an effective discussion leader and good communication skills. The best will be tailored to your board’s unique situation. Identifying areas of agreement, committing to resolve conflict, instituting clear voting rules, and creating working committees can all lead to creative solutions.

How does your family foundation board make decisions? Or, how do you disagree?  What tools have you used to make grant decisions when consensus isn’t possible? 

Mary Phillips is president of GMA Foundations. She is presenting at the “Same Cloth, Different Garments” session, February 14 from 10:30 a.m. to noon, at the Family Philanthropy Conference.