Rise of the Independent Chair
The Independent Chair role is not new in Company Boards. In fact having an Independent Board leader has become common practice for many small and large companies. More recently we are seeing the Independent Chair role being utilised more and more in large scale reform projects and multi-stakeholder initiatives. But are we utilising this role enough? When should we have an Independent Chair and how can they add value?
When more than one organisation or group is involved in a project or initiative the chair is inevitably selected from one of these groups involved. Now this may work fine to a point but what happens when a conflict situation arises? And how is the balance of power perceived by all those involved?
In any chairing role there will be times when a degree of independence is required in progressing business, resolving conflicts or managing the process. In these situations when the Chair is from one organisation it is inevitable that a perception of bias or power imbalance can occur.
Even if the Chair from that organisation is doing an excellent job and endeavouring to act in the best interests of all parties involved, it is always difficult to be seen as truly independent when a difficult situation arises and you are from one of the organisations involved.
Through many years working in the public and private sectors on a range of tough complex problems and change initiatives I have seen numerous types of governance structures established. While many have used the traditional approach of appointing someone from the largest organisation or the main funding body, in a number of these we used an Independent Chair role to great advantage.
One such example was the Native Title Resolution initiative in South Australia. This initiative commenced in 2000 with the aim of trying to resolve native title issues through negotiated outcomes that would deliver a series of Indigenous Land Use Agreements. It involved representatives from the mining, pastoral and fishing industries sitting down with State and Local Government and some 23 Native Title Claim Groups as part of this negotiation process. This was an extremely complex initiative that started with a series of facilitated workshops and developed into more formal governance structures and management processes over time.
While the State Government was funding a significant part of this initiative, the State’s representative made a decision very early not to be the Chair. Rather they along with the other parties decided to engage a totally Independent Chair so that all parties could work ‘side by side’ and be seen as equals at the negotiating table. I was engaged to facilitate the early conversations that resulted in establishing the initiative and this evolved into the Independent Chair role as it progressed.
Key Takeouts From My Role As An Independent Chair:
When trying to resolve extremely complex issues you are able to focus on the overall process and not be consumed by the content
You can step back more easily and see the overall process more clearly
You are able to maintain equity and resolve conflicts more effectively as your only agenda is to get a good outcome for all parties involved
It enables representatives of the parties to raise difficult issues by talking what I call ‘to and through’ the Chair
It can be appropriate in certain circumstances to act as a key spokesperson and advocate for a reform process or initiative to external stakeholders. While again acting on behalf of all parties involved and using your independence to speak on behalf of the whole group
So if you are about to launch into a major reform initiative and considering who should chair the process you may wish to consider bringing in someone independent and levelling the playing field - you may be surprised at just how effective this can be.