Picture this scene: a board meeting has just ended where everything flowed perfectly. The members were completely aligned, the atmosphere was friendly, and at the end there was laughter and spontaneous applause. You leave thinking: “What great chemistry we have!” Yet, as you walk to your car, an uncomfortable question follows you: “Did we really make the best decisions, or do we simply get along too well?”
Many directors confuse personal harmony with strategic effectiveness. But the research on group dynamics reveals something troubling: excessively good chemistry can lead to the dreaded “groupthink” — the phenomenon described by Irving Janis, in which the desire for harmony replaces critical thinking.
The silent danger of groupthink
When board members feel too comfortable with one another, the likelihood of questioning, debating, or challenging an idea drops dramatically. This carries significant risks:
- Lack of critical analysis: directors avoid asking uncomfortable or critical questions for fear of breaking the harmony.
- Superficial decisions: in the rush for quick consensus, the rigor and depth needed for sound strategic decisions are sacrificed.
- Limited innovation: without internal challenge, the board misses opportunities to explore new ideas and disruptive approaches.
In analyses of the 2008 financial crisis, work published in the Harvard Business Review highlighted how several highly cohesive boards ignored clear warning signs of risk out of fear of internal dissent. Iconic companies such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns paid dearly for the excessive harmony of their directors.
Positive tension as the key to success
The balance between harmony and productive tension may seem contradictory, but it is exactly what boards need in order to thrive. Leading companies such as Netflix and Amazon actively promote internal debate and cognitive diversity in order to make robust, well-grounded decisions.
To achieve this, successful boards implement practices such as:
- A structured devil’s advocate: a director explicitly assigned to challenge every proposal.
- Real diversity: members with different backgrounds, ages, and perspectives, able to contribute different points of view.
- Safe spaces: explicit rules to foster vigorous but respectful debate.
A study by the MIT Sloan Management Review found that companies with high cognitive diversity reported 20% more innovation in their processes and products.
How to avoid the trap of excessively “good chemistry”
- Regularly assess the board’s dynamics: use anonymous surveys to understand whether there is genuine room for healthy disagreement.
- Actively promote diversity: seek directors who think differently and are not afraid to express their views.
- Facilitate uncomfortable conversations: normalize productive disagreement as an integral part of the process.
Reflection questions for the board
- When was the last time someone put forward a radically different opinion in a meeting, and how was it received?
- Do we have clear processes to ensure that all voices, especially dissenting ones, are heard and considered?
- Is our board sufficiently diverse in thought, experience, and perspective, or do we tend to seek very similar profiles?
- Have we confused cordiality with strategic effectiveness, avoiding difficult topics to keep the atmosphere pleasant?
Conclusion
Chemistry among board members can be a valuable asset, as long as it does not turn into complacency. The key lies in balancing harmony with enough positive tension to allow for informed, well-debated decisions.
P.S. If no one on your board questions anything, the real chemistry you need may be more tension and less comfort.