Sometimes the answer may be more complex than a simple yes or no, says Tamsin Stirling.
I have often thought that many debates are presented in rather simplistic, binary terms. Something is good or it’s bad, it’s been successful or it’s failed, you’re with me or you’re against me. In many instances, such a polarised debate is really unhelpful. For example, disagreeing with, or challenging, someone can be seen as being disloyal, rather than as an attempt to clarify something, probe assumptions or question whether there might be other ways of doing things.
We see this a lot in politics; political parties can struggle to encompass differences of views from within their membership or be welcoming of constructive challenge from within or outside of the party. In the board context, a binary approach can lead to factions or cliques and/or an antagonistic relationship between board and senior management.
It can also work against diversity, or at least getting real value from diversity at board level. If discussions are couched in binary form, the crudest form of this being a yes/no vote, it can mean views that deviate from either end of the spectrum are seen as irrelevant or unnecessary. Many papers presented simply for board approval fit into this binary view of the world. They can give a message that the work to address the issue has been done and there is little for the board to add. Contrast this with papers that ask questions of the board, invite a debate or consideration of options. These can enable board members to really add value, to bring their varying perspectives and expertise to issues and generate well-founded decisions.
Performance measurement frameworks can also be unhelpfully binary. Discussions can end up solely focusing on whether a particular performance target has been met and if not, why not. Housing is a very people-focused business and most of the things housing associations do are interconnected. If more time is spent on one activity in order to meet a particular target, there may be a negative impact elsewhere. A challenge for boards is to get away from a judgement of pass/fail for each individual target and to consider performance as a whole. And to ensure the performance measurement framework, as far as possible, does not have unintended consequences. A vivid example here is emissions from cars. Pursuing a target for CO2 reduction has led, not only to some companies cheating the system, but also to an increase in nitrogen oxide emissions.
A binary approach may inform what gets on to board agendas; is an item strategic or operational? If it’s operational, it should not be on the agenda at all; the board is supposed to focus on strategic issues, is the generally accepted view. Sometimes, however, there are distinctly fuzzy edges between strategic and operational matters and some consideration of both aspects can mean a better outcome.
We also know from the recent history of housing association governance in Wales that sometimes where things that have not gone well or where mistakes have been made, these issues did not get on to the board agenda. Mistakes are an opportunity for learning; a binary approach restricts the capacity for learning, both within staff teams and at board level.
I heard a fascinating radio programme a few weeks ago about three-sided football[1]. Three teams play on a hexagonal pitch with three goals and no referee; the game is self-regulating. The teams of five players don’t try to score, they try to avoid conceding goals by forming temporary defensive alliances with one or other of the opposing teams. The team that concedes the fewest goals wins.
Three-sided football was invented by Danish artist and philosopher Asger Jorn based on his concept of trialectics; thinking in threes instead of twos, instead of the dialectical thinking which divides things between pro and anti. Jorn considered that trialectics provided more possibilities than dialectics and fostered collaboration rather than competition.
I make reference to this rather eclectic concept as a demonstration that there are different ways of seeing things that go beyond binary and that challenge binary ways of thinking.
Reality is messy; the world that our organisations work in is complex and appears to be increasingly so. As Conrad Wolfram noted in an article in the Financial Times last October: ‘The problem with binary thinking is that it leads to binary decision-making…… While binary thinking is right for computers, it is not right for the real world’ [2].
Thank you to Gayna Jones and Alison Inman for our governance discussions, which are anything but binary!
Tamsin Stirling can be contacted at tamsin.stirling@dial.pipex.com and on Twitter @TamsinStirling1
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b075tddw
[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1327bc52-7eec-11e5-98fb-5a6d4728f74e.html#axzz495msYlY3