Lessons from the Hewlett-Packard debacle

Do not accuse in absentia. Fiorina told the press that, before she was fired, she provided the board with a statement about her performance and then was asked to leave the room. She was called back three hours later and told by two directors that she had been let go. "I expected the board to look me in the eye and tell me why," she wrote. "They didn't have the courage." Fiorina apparently had fewer rights than an accused felon, who at least is entitled to hear the charges in open court. Such lack of transparency is a deterrent to high performance.

Do not personalize issues. After Dunn's resignation, Perkins told Newsweek that, "My number-one thing was to get Pattie out as chairman, and I got that. So I'm happy." Boardroom discussions are too important to be compromised by personal vendettas. Better to treat an issue as a "business case." While depersonalizing is not easy, giving--and accepting--objective, fact-based critiques is essential for that productive give-and-take that drives improvement and progress.

Resolve it or let it go. Some teams adhere to a 24- or 48-hour deadline for conflict resolution. If, at the end of that time, the parties with the issue have not been able to resolve it, they are expected to drop it once and for all and move on.

No hands from the grave. Some people simply cannot take "no" for an answer. They continue to lobby long after their pet alternative has been discarded and even though they have agreed to live with the team's decision. Do not allow it.

To be useful, protocols must be embedded into how business is done. They should be written down--some teams even keep them posted in the meeting room as a reference to help guide and assess behavior.

"Their fight [reflected] a fundamental conflict over how to run big companies in a post-Enron world. Ms. Dunn brought a careful, rules-based approach to fife.... Mr. Perkins, by contrast, is a boisterous Silicon Valley legend, in love with fast cars, large sailboats, and getting his own way." This characterization by the Wall Street Journal of the two leading adversaries on HP's board reflects one of the major sources of problems on any team: incompatible interpersonal styles. Board members, like executives everywhere, tend to use three basic styles: nonassertive, assertive, and aggressive. The nonassertive director, in effect, says, "I have needs and so do you, but I am not telling you what mine are." At the other extreme, the aggressive director proceeds on the basis that "I have needs and so do you, but mine count more." The most successful boards are those in which directors are assertive--able to express their needs and argue for their point of view without annihilating the opposition. They are able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Consider putting your board through this exercise: Begin by asking each member to identify his or her communication style--nonassertive, assertive, or aggressive. Then, ask the other board members, one at a time, to explain why they agree or disagree with their colleagues' self-perception. It takes a great deal of courage to look into the mirror that others hold up to us--it takes even more to try to modify our behavior based on their negative feedback. Yet, if directors are serious about becoming members of a high-performing team, it behooves them to eliminate blind spots, particularly those that relate to how they transmit and receive messages from one another.