ABSTRACT
The process of gaining and growing one’s influence has to be continually negotiated and renegotiated through dialogue that demonstrates directors’ finely tuned social astuteness. The mere possession of board capital is not sufficient; it is the skill with which board capital is used that determines how influential directors become in the board group. Based on research into what successful directors actually do to resolve role and task tensions, as opposed to what they should do, this chapter details the four social competencies that influential directors demonstrate to mobilise their board capital to resolve task and role tensions. The research also reveals three underlying director dispositions necessary for playing an influential role on a board.
The micro-judgements NEDs made about the social competence and propensities of their peers determined how skilful they judged others to be in navigating the hidden hierarchy and this determined their response to the influencing efforts of others. These perceptions were in no way static; instead, they were subject to continually negotiated and renegotiated relations through the directors’ discursive practices accompanying each influence attempt.
The chapter proposes strategies for how influence is gained through questioning and contention; shared through feedback and learning; asserted through purposeful use of relevance and expertise; and supported through initiating, engaging with and owning challenge as a necessary part of healthy board processes. Despite the important role they play, social competencies and dispositional attributes are rarely considered in the selection of new directors or the development of existing directors. The chapter concludes with a handy framework to guide what boards need to look for in hiring new directors and developing existing ones.
This chapter includes a second letter to the nominations committee; it suggests that relational and dispositional attributes (the means by which board capital is mobilised effectively) must be taken into account to achieve the right board mix. The letter challenges the frequently heard label ‘right fit’ that may be used to hire directors who will not ‘rock the boat’. The notion of fit may adversely affect the contention of ideas and diversity of perspectives and viewpoints so essential for a healthy decision-making dynamic, resulting in an overly agreeable boardroom. Strategies are offered to the committee for getting the right board mix to allow constructive contention to thrive, rather than hiring more of the same to fit in with what you already have.
