IFC Corporate
Governance
Knowledge
Publication

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey
Results and Analysis

© Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.
International Finance Corporation
2121 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20433
Centre for Effective Dispute resolution
International Dispute Resolution Centre
70 Fleet Street
London EC4Y 1EU
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed inthis publication should not be attributed in any manner to theInternational Finance Corporation (IFC) and/or to theCentre for Effective Dispute resolution (CEDR) and theiraffiliated organizations, or to members of their boards of
directors or the countries they represent. IFC and CEDR do notguarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication
and accept no responsibility for any consequence of their use.
The material in this work is protected by copyright. IFC and
CEDR encourage dissemination of this publication and hereby
grant permission to users of this work to copy portions fortheir personal, noncommercial use, without any right toresell, redistribute, or create derivative works there from. Anyother copying or use of this work requires the express written
permission of the International Finance Corporation.
For permission to photocopy or reprint, please send a request
with complete information to:International Finance Corporation
c/o the World Bank Permissions Desk
Office of the Publisher
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20433
All queries on rights and licenses including subsidiary rights
should be addressed to:International Finance Corporation
c/o Office of the Publisher
World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington DC, 20433
Or, fax (202) 522-2422

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey
Results and Analysis
Table of Contents
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................2
Key Findings.....................................................................................................................................3
About the Survey Participants...........................................................................................................3
Boardrooms in Conflict ....................................................................................................................5
Impact of Disputes...........................................................................................................................5
Attempts to Resolve the Dispute ......................................................................................................6
When Disputes Cannot Be Resolved.................................................................................................7
The Difficulty of Dealing with Personal Factors..................................................................................8
The Training that Directors Want versus the Training Already Received..............................................9
A Gender Difference?.....................................................................................................................10
Impact of Enterprise Size on Resolving Conflict...............................................................................12
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................13

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

1Introduction
In the boardroom, disagreements are often unavoidable — especially when the board is composed of independentminded, skilled, and outspoken directors. This is not a bad thing. There should be a debate in the boardroom, anddecisions should result from a process in which directors consider all reasonably available information. A board that neverargues or disagrees is most likely to be an inactive, passive, or inattentive board — in other words, an ineffective boardthat is neither fulfilling its oversight function nor carrying out its duty of care.
Yet, if boardroom disagreements and/or shareholder
conflicts are not dealt with properly, they can devolve
into acrimonious disputes that undermine a company’s
operation and performance. Left unchecked andunattended, these disputes escalate quickly into publicmatters that can have severe, long-term consequences forthe company and its key stakeholders. These disputes canlead to poor performance, scare investors, produce waste,
divert resources, cause share values to decline, and, insome cases, paralyze a company.
In 2012, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution(CEDR) and the Corporate Governance Group of theInternational Finance Corporation (IFC) undertook ajoint project to explore the causes, nature and methods ofresolving corporate governance disputes. As part of thisongoing project, CEDR and IFC carried out a global survey

in late 2013 of 191 directors and board members (including
IFC Nominee Directors and members of the Private Sector
Advisory Group) to find out about their experiences withand attitudes towards boardroom disputes.
Corporate governance disputes involve corporate
authority and its exercise and involve the board’s
powers and actions — or its failure or refusal to act.
These conflicts may arise between the board andits shareholders or between directors and executive
management. They may also concern issues among
the directors themselves or between the board andother stakeholders. A governance dispute implicatesthe board in one way or another, as a party or as
an active participant, and requires the directors’
engagement to resolve the conflict.

About IFC Corporate Governance GroupThe Group brings together staff from investment support and advisory operations into a single, global team. This unified
team advises on all aspects of corporate governance and offers targeted client services in areas such as increasing board
effectiveness, improving the control environment, and family businesses governance. The Group also helps support
corporate governance improvements and reform efforts in emerging markets and developing countries, while leveraging
and integrating knowledge tools, expertise, and networks at the global and regional levels.
The Group’s Corporate Governance Dispute Resolution program aims to equip board directors with knowledge, skills
and tools to manage and resolve CG disputes and difficult conversations on the board. Purpose: (i) To reduce the negative
impact of disputes on the company’s reputation and performance; (ii) To improve the quality and effectiveness of board
deliberations. The program brings together CG and ADR specialists to develop knowledge and training products, andguide their implementation.
www.ifc.org/corporategovernance
About Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
CEDR is a not-for-profit body, founded in 1990, that campaigns for better resolution of disputes and management ofconflicts. CEDR’s innovative initiatives promote awareness of the need for more effective leadership in collaboration anddialogue and how to achieve it.
CEDR is Europe’s largest independent Alternative Dispute Resolution service, which to date has helped over 40,000
parties in commercial disputes. CEDR is the leading negotiation and conflict management trainer internationallyacclaimed for its Mediator Skills Training of over 9,000 mediators. It also consults globally on Civil Justice reform andhelps business develop conflict management systems.
www.cedr.com

2

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

Key Findings
Our results show the significant effects that boardroom disputes can have on an organization — and the challenges that
individual members of those boards encounter in attempting to resolve a dispute at this level. The following are somespecific findings from the survey:
 e found that 29.6 percent of respondents hadWexperience with a boardroom dispute affecting thesurvival of an organization.
 e most common subject matter of board disputes
Th
is “financial, structural, or procedural workings ofthe organization,” closely followed by the “personal
behavior and attitudes of directors.”espondents stated that the most difficult factorsR
in resolving board disputes were issues related tocompeting factions on the board — “handling theemotions of those involved and separating personalfrom business interest.”
 hile 47.8 percent of respondents attempt to mediateWboard disputes, 34.3 percent admit to frequently being
an active party in the dispute, and a further 25.3 percent
of respondents frequently take a side of an active party.
 oard members are much more confident that theyB
can resolve an internal board dispute (58.5 percent felt
able to resolve these most of the time) than an external
dispute involving the board and external stakeholders(just 24.3 percent felt capable of resolving this kind of
dispute).
 isputes are most commonly resolved through internalD
negotiation (61.2 percent) or internal mediation (25.2

percent). Boards are very reluctant to resort to litigation
to resolve such disputes (3.1 percent).
 significant proportion of respondents (67.2 percent)Areport that they have encountered unresolved issues.
24.1 percent of small-enterprise respondents reportthat issues are frequently not resolved, whereas only
5.9 percent of those from medium enterprises and15.6 percent from large enterprises report frequently
unresolved issues.
espondents are extremely interested in havingR
training for dealing with personal factors: 74.8 percent
described training in the “ability to deal with different
personalities” as very useful.
 gender difference emerged regarding the kindsAof skills desired: women are far more interested inreceiving training in negotiation skills, and men are
more interested in training on how to deal with different
personalities.

29.6 percent of respondents had experience ofa boardroom dispute affecting the survival of anorganization

About the Survey Participants
In October and November 2013, we conducted an online survey of 191 members of corporate boards across the world.
Our respondents were experienced board members, with the greatest number (43 percent) having more than 10 years’
experience serving on boards. (See Figure 1 on page 4)
Within their organizations, our respondents were mostfrequently independent directors (26.2 percent) or nonexecutive directors (22.7 percent), though we had asignificant percentage of respondents who had otherpositions, such as board chair or chief executive officer of
their organization. (See Table 1.)
Respondents represented a full range of organization types,
the most common being a private non-family company(26.8 percent) or listed company (22.4 percent). They
covered a wide range of sectors, particularly finance andbanking (28.8 percent), education (11.5 percent), energy(7.9 percent), public sector (5.8 percent), and insurance(5.2 percent).

Table 1: Roles of Respondents in their
Organizations
Independent Director

26.2%

Non-Executive Director

22.7%Management

18.0%

Executive Director

12.8%

Board Chair

12.2%

CEO

8.1%

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

3

Figure 2: Size of Respondents’ Organizations

Figure 1: Length of Time Respondents
Served as a Corporate Board Member

SmallEnterprise24.3%

0–3 years
21%Over
10 years
43%

Large
Enterprise
49.7%

MediumEnterprise
25.9%

3–10 years
36%

Survey respondents were from organizations of different
sizes: 49.7 percent from large enterprises (over 300
employees and total assets over $15 million); 25.9 percent
from medium enterprises (50–300 employees and total
assets of $3 million to $15 million); and 24.3 percent
from small enterprises (up to 50 employees and total assets
under $3 Million). (See Figure 2.)
We also had a global response, with respondents based in awide range of countries. As shown in Figure 3, the largest

proportion of respondents were from Sub-Saharan Africa,
but there were also respondents from all other major areas,
including a significant proportion of respondents from
non-developing countries.2
Regarding personal factors, 73.6 percent of respondents
were male, and 26.4 percent were female; 54.1 percent
were over 50 years old, 27.6 percent were 40–50 years old,
11.0 percent were 30–39 years old, and 7.2 percent were
under 30 years old.

Figure 3: Countries of Respondents’ Organizations

Non-Developing
Countries (such as
U.S.A., Canada,
France)East Asia and Pacific
10.9%
17.4%

Global8.7%South Asia

7.6%

13.0%

Europe and Central Asia

13.0%

Latin America andthe Caribbean

8.7%

Middle East andNorth Africa

20.7%

Sub-Saharan Africa

2 Country designations are based on World Bank groupings, available at http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups.

4

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

Boardrooms in Conflict
All boardrooms have disputes, which not surprisingly cover a wide range of topics. Our survey found that the mostfrequent subjects of disputes were (in descending order of frequency) 1) the financial, structural, or procedural workingsof the organization; 2) the personal behavior and attitudes of directors; and 3) strategy development, including mergers
and acquisitions. (See Table 2.)

Table 2: Most Common Topics of Boardroom Disputes
Financial, structural, or procedural workings of the organization

40.3%*

Personal behavior and attitudes of directors

38.4%

Strategy development, including mergers and acquisitions

37.2%

Risk appetite and risk management

31.3%

Change and crisis management

30.6%

Audit findings

29.9%

Board process issues, such as structure of meetings, schedules, etc.

29.4%Management oversight

28.4%

Composition of board and senior management

24.7%

Involvement of shareholder/owner’s family in business

21.7%*Percentage stating the item was a “frequent” or “very frequent” topic of dispute.

Impact of Disputes
In themselves, disputes are not necessarily a problem for a board; it is when they are mismanaged or become insurmountablethat the problem occurs. Considering the impact of these disputes on business priorities (see Table 3), it is important fororganizations to tackle them effectively, to ensure that the negative outcomes are minimized.
Table 3: Impact of Boardroom Disputes on Business
Wasting management time

49.3%*

Distracting from core business priorities

44.9%

Reducing trust among board members

42.8%

Affecting the functioning of the board

42.1%

Affecting the efficiency of the organization

38.3%

Negatively affecting relationships within the organization

32.4%

Costing the company money

29.5%

Damaging long-term business performance/profitability

26.8%

Affecting the reputation of the organization

23.7%*Percentage stating the item had a “significant” or “very significant” impact.

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

5Attempts to Resolve the Dispute
Regarding the roles that those surveyed have taken when disputes have arisen on the board, we received a mixture of
responses.
For example, 47.8 percent of respondents stated thatwhen they encountered board disputes, they commonly
attempted to mediate the dispute; 34.3 percent admitted
that they were frequently or very frequently an active
party to the dispute; 25.3 percent said they commonly
are not the active party, but take side in the dispute; and26.5 percent of respondents reported that they frequently
or very frequently were neutral in a dispute.3 These figures
show that, although board members may think theywould try to resolve a dispute, in reality a small majority
generally do not adopt this position; rather they take astance that is either openly on one side of the dispute or is
noncombative (a fight-or-flight response).
The significance of the positions people adopt in
relation to conflict can be seen in their choice of how
to deal with it. The most common mechanisms forresolving a dispute remained internal to the board (seeTable 4). Therefore, as the table suggests, it is importantfor board members to be trained in, maintain, and apply
skills in mediation and negotiation — the most common
methods of resolving disputes.

Table 4: Most Common Methods of Resolving Board Disputes
Through internal negotiation

61.2%*

Through mediation by a member of the board or management

25.2%

Through a decision made by an internal authority holder

19.7%

The issue is not resolved

15.6%

By avoiding the conflict and letting it pass

11.0%

Through court action/arbitration

3.1%

Through external mediation

2.3%

Through negotiation by way of external negotiators/advisers

2.3%*Percentage of respondents describing this method of resolution as occurring frequently.

Extremely few respondents indicated a willingness toresort to court action (indeed, 79.7 percent said they neverresolved their boardroom disputes in this way). We also
found that the more internal the dispute is the more willing
respondents are to resolve it: 58.5 percent of respondents
were happy to resolve intra-board disputes most or all of

the time, compared to just 24.3 percent of respondents
for disputes between the board and external stakeholders.
Similarly, a majority of respondents (57.9 percent) felt
confident resolving board-management disputes most or
all of the time, and 31.6 percent felt confident resolving
board-shareholder disputes.

3 Respondents could select multiple options in answering this question; so the responses total more than 100 percent.

6

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

When Disputes Cannot Be Resolved
A significant percentage (15.6 percent) of respondents reported that their boardroom disputes frequently are not resolved.
And 67.2 percent said they have some experience of unresolved issues.
More strikingly, 29.6 percent of our survey respondents indicated that they had experienced a boardroom dispute that
affected the survival of an organization they had been involved with. Of those who reported such disputes, 63.6 percent
cited personal issues connected with the dispute as being a major factor in the organization’s demise. (See some of theircomments below.)“There are many [issues], but they all boil down to personality
crisis. Most of the people I have been on boards with feeloverqualified and find it difficult to accept views of othermembers.”“In the first board meeting with a new board which was less friendly
to him, [the CEO] quit and put several million dollars in his pocket.”“. . .The chairman insisted on his idea of an IPO, and theorganization collapsed.”“The current conflict over succession planning for the founder/chair/
CEO of the NGO is threatening the survival of the organization.
A pattern of conflict avoidance on the part of the chair/CEO, astagnant flow of information, and the board’s passivity make it hardto discuss next steps.”“Personal behavior and attitudes of directors. The CEO’s
abrasive style, with zero appetite for “changes,” has pushed thecompany to a stage wherein the company is under attack fromthe stakeholders, including the creditors.”“In one board, there was a significant difference of opinion between
the chairman-CEO and the board about the way he had treatedrelations with personnel. That might have paralyzed the company.
The board obliged the CEO to quit.”“If we [the board members] are not going to act as per theirinstructions, our job security will be questionable. Generally
speaking, we are hostages.”

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

7

The Difficulty of Dealing with Personal Factors
Complicating factors in the way a dispute is presented frequently become as important as the subject matter of the disputeitself. These factors can make handling a dispute more difficult (see Table 5).
Table 5: Frequency and Difficulty of Complicating Factors
Which complicating factors do respondents encounter most frequently?
Issues regarding handling the emotions of those involved in the dispute

29.4%*

Conflict of personal or family interests versus interests of the company

26.6%

Avoidance of the dispute/conflict from those affected

26.4%

Issues over status

25.3%

Issues over competing factions on the board

23.5%

What complicating factor do respondents find the most difficult to manage?
Issues over competing factions on the board

52.5%

Issues regarding handling the emotions of those involved in the dispute

49.6%

Conflict of personal or family interests versus interests of the company

49.2%

Issues over status

41.2%

Avoidance of the dispute/conflict from those affected37.8%* P ercentage of respondents describing the complicating factor as encountered “frequently” or “very frequently” and the dispute as“difficult” or “very difficult” to manage, respectively.

Our responding board members found that the personal
issues listed in Table 5 were both difficult and frequent
complicating factors in disputes. They indicated that themost difficult factor was “issues over competing factions on
the boards,” with 52.5 percent describing it as “difficult”
or “very difficult,” although it occurred less frequently.
In practice, the concept of “competing factions” islikely to involve the many different types of directors(independent, executive, non-executive), each type with
its own particular interests. There may also be competingfactions between management and the board.
In handling disputes arising from competing factions, it isimportant to deal sensitively with the people involved. It
can be helpful to consider some of the methods mentioned
below, in particular the “soft skills,” such as the ability tounderstand and work with the personalities of those involved.
This difficulty of competing factions is closely connectedto the second-most difficult complicating factor: handlingthe emotions of those involved in the dispute. Nearly half
(49.6 percent) of respondents found handling emotions to bedifficult. And 29.4 percent said they encountered this issue inboard disputes, making it the most frequently encounteredfactor. Handling the emotions of those involved requires
many of the same skills as dealing with competing factions;both entail recognizing the need and working with theaffected parties rather than avoiding the issue.
Other complicating factors seen as both prevalent anddifficult to deal with also reflect the challenge of working
with the human side of the dispute. For example, handling“conflicts of personal/family interests versus interests ofthe company” was the second-most frequent complicating
factor (with 26.6 percent reporting that it occurred
frequently or very frequently) and the third-most difficult
factor to deal (with 49.2 percent describing it as “difficult”
or “very difficult”).
The third-most frequent (26.4 percent) factor was “avoidanceof the dispute/conflict from those affected,” although it camein fifth in difficulty (37.8 percent). On its own, avoidanceof a dispute is rarely an effective strategy and can be acrippling factor for a board that fails to tackle the conflictappropriately. Ignoring a problem rather than ameliorating it
often just exacerbates it. (See the comment below.)“In my experience the avoidance of the dispute is the biggest problem, especially in a company with adominant shareholder and two minority shareholders, where the minority shareholders are suffering
most from results of avoidance but are hardly part of the conflict management, as the conflict is playedoutside the board/board meetings”

8

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

The Training that Directors Want versus the Training Already Received
Given these trends, it is not a surprise that the training that board members now want is in how to deal with these personal
issues and handle the human being behind the dispute. Overall, the most requested training was for the “ability to deal
with different personalities” (74.8 percent described it as “very useful”), the “ability to give and receive constructive
feedback” (73.0 percent described it as “very useful”), and the “ability to have difficult conversations” (70.1 percent
described it as very useful). (See Table 6.)
Table 6: Skills Training that Board Members WantAbility to deal with different personalities

74.8%*

Ability to give and receive constructive critical feedback

73.0%

Ability to have difficult conversations

70.1%

Communication skills

69.5%

Ability to chair an effective meeting

68.3%

Mediation skills

65.1%

Negotiation skills

64.0%

Ability to deal with volatile personalities

61.4%

Awareness of cultural issues

54.3%

Ability to manage politics outside the boardroom

52.0%*Percentage describing skills training as “very useful.”

The following comments from our respondents reflect this need for increased training in tackling personal issues, such as
emotional intelligence, diversity, and leadership.
“A greater awareness of the role that emotional intelligence plays inrelationships and decision making would be helpful. Our chairman/CEO
is all too willing to bury succession planning by reducing the number ofboard meetings held annually, creating impossibly long agendas, anddominating discussions. The board members admire and respect his work
but are too timid and seem unable to help him see that if the NGO is tosurvive and his legacy remain intact, it is time to find a new leader.”“I think that the greatest shortcoming of most boards on which I have
served is an inexperienced chairman or chairwoman.”“[The] board need to be sufficiently diverse in education, background,
ethnicity, and gender to be able to tackle everything that the company
might have to deal with. With diversity, which may overcome groupthink, will come more room for disagreement. That is OK. The trick is tokeep disagreement from becoming a dispute.”

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

9

The respondents’ focus on soft skills can be contrasted withthe training they generally have already received (which is
notably extensive). We found that, although the majorityof respondents have not had internal training in conflict
management, negotiation skills, or chairing meetings, the(slim) majority have had some form of external training
in these skills (see Figure 4). The exception is training in

corporate governance, in which the majority have had
training both internally (57.6 percent) and externally (82.6
percent). These figures suggest potential for additional
training in dealing with personal factors as well as inunderstanding broader board issues.

Figure 4: External and Internal Training Respondents Have Received

150

Yes - Internal

No. of respondents

120

No - Internal

90

Yes - External

60

No - External

30
0ConflictManagement

Negotiation
SkillsChairing
Meetings

Corporate
Governance

A Gender Difference?
Notably, while training is comparable for men and women in the other skills, we found a gender difference in the amountof skills training that respondents have received in negotiation skills: for example, 39.1 percent of men have received
internal training and 62.5 percent have received external training; but just 11.4 percent of women have received internal
training and 45.5 percent have received external training. (See Figure 5 and Table 7 on page 11.)
Figure 5: Percentages of Men and of Women
Trained in Negotiation Skills

62.5%
45.5%

39.1%

11.4%
Men
Internal
Training

10

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

WomenInternal
Training

Men
External
Training

Women
External
Training

There is also a notable difference between the answers ofmen and women regarding their perception of the levelof difficulty of dealing with emotions. While both men
and women considered handling the emotions of those
involved in the dispute to be something that occurred
frequently (31.3 percent of men had it as their mostcommon complicating factor, and women saw it as thesecond-most common complicating factor, after avoidanceof the issue), women considered the issue to be far lessdifficult to deal with than men did. (See Figure 6 on page11.)

Figure 6: Gender Differences in Handling
Emotions of Those Involved in Disputes

51.7%
43.8%
31.3%
24.2%

Men
Perceived
Frequency

Women
Perceived
Frequency

Men
Perceived
Difficulty

Women
Perceived
Difficulty

Only 43.8 percent of women considered emotions to bedifficult or very difficult to deal with — less difficult thancompeting factions, conflicts of personal versus private
issues, and avoidance. On the other hand, 51.7 percent of

men considered emotions to be difficult or very difficult
to deal with, placing its difficulty level second only todealing with competing factions.
This skills gap between men and women — regarding
training in negotiation and handling emotions — isreflected in the distinction between the skills desired bymen and women. For women, negotiation skills were thesecond-most commonly desired skill (with 71.0 percent
describing the skills as very useful), just behind the ability
to have difficult conversations (75.8 percent). But formen, it was only the eighth-most highly valued skill (61.7
percent). The skills they most desired training in were
1) the ability to deal with different personalities (76.6
percent); 2) the ability to give and receive constructive
critical feedback (74.5 percent); and 3) communication
skills (72.6 percent).
The importance of appreciating this gender differenceis that a board may require different skills training
depending on its gender diversity.

Table 7: Most Desired Skills Training, by Gender
Male Respondents
Ability to deal with different personalities

76.6%*

Ability to give and receive constructive critical feedback

74.5%

Communication skills

72.4%

Ability to chair an effective meeting

70.2%

Ability to have difficult conversations

68.1%

Mediation skills

67.0%

Ability to deal with volatile personalities

64.2%

Negotiation skills

61.7%

Awareness of cultural issues

56.8%

Ability to deal with politics outside the boardroom

49.5%

Female Respondents
Ability to have difficult conversations

75.8%

Negotiation skills

71.0%

Ability to deal with different personalities

69.7%

Ability to give and receive constructive critical feedback

68.8%

Ability to chair an effective meeting

62.5%

Communication skills

60.6%

Mediation skills

59.4%

Ability to deal with politics outside the boardroom

59.4%

Ability to deal with volatile personalities

53.1%

Awareness of cultural issues

46.9%*Percentages of respondents stating that the skills training would be very useful.

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

11Impact of Enterprise Size on Resolving Conflict
We found that the size of an organization made a notable difference in the percentage of board disputes that were notresolved. Respondents from smaller companies were more likely to say that the issue was not resolved than were thosefrom larger enterprises. Of those surveyed, 24.1 percent from smaller enterprises said that their issues were frequently not
resolved, compared to just 5.9 percent from medium enterprises and 15.6 percent from large enterprises. (See Figure 7.) (Itshould also be noted that a significant number of respondents across all enterprises stated that there were never occasions
when their issues were not resolved.)
Figure 7: Percentage of Issues Frequently Not
Resolved at Board Level, based on the company
size
24.1%

15.6%

15.6%

5.9%

Overall

Small

MediumLarge

Another marked difference was in the kind of issues
respondents encountered as complicating factors in
resolving the conflict within the board. Exactly half of
those from small enterprises said they had encounteredavoidance of the issue frequently or very frequently,
compared to just 21.2 percent of respondents frommedium enterprises and 19.1 percent of respondents
from large enterprises. Also, 53.4 percent of small-

12

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

enterprise respondents saw dealing with the emotion of
those involved in the dispute as frequent or very frequent(and 65.4 percent of them considered it to be difficult
or very difficult to deal with), compared to 17.6 percent
of medium-enterprise respondents and 25.8 percent oflarge-enterprise respondents. A possible reason for thisdifference might be that small and medium enterprises
tend to have smaller boards, making group cohesion more
important to the participants.
As an overall trend, we found little disparity in theamount of training that respondents received acrossthe different sectors. However, there is a significant
difference in the skills that people want across thedifferent sizes of organizations. (See Table 8). While
being able to deal with different personalities is valued
across all sizes, smaller enterprises place more emphasis
on negotiation skills and being able to deal withmore extreme personality types. “The ability to deal
with volatile personalities” is prized as a skill by theseorganizations more than with larger organizations. In
medium enterprises, there is a desire for process skills,
with “the ability to chair an effective meeting” being themost desired skill, while those from the largest enterprises
have most need for general communication skills. This
may well reflect the different needs of organizations as
they expand and encounter different problems.

Table 8: Three Most Desired Skills Training — by Organization Size
Small Enterprise
Most Desired

Ability to deal with different personalities

85.2%*

Second-Most Desired (tie)

Negotiation skills

77.8%

Second-Most Desired (tie)Ability to deal with volatile personalities

77.8%

Most Desired

Ability to chair an effective meeting

78.8%

Second-Most Desired

Ability to give and receive constructive feedback

75.8%

Third-Most Desired

Ability to deal with different personalities

69.7%

Most Desired

Ability to deal with different personalities

72.7%

Second-Most Desired

Ability to give and receive constructive feedback

72.3%

Third-Most Desired

Communication skills

71.6%

Medium Enterprise

Large Enterprise*Percentage describing skill as very useful.

Conclusion
Overall, the results show the prevalence of boardroom disputes and the damaging effects that unresolved disputes canhave. Even those disputes that are resolved still have a significant impact on a business, because they waste management
time and distract from core business priorities. Further, we found that the majority of disputes are resolved by internal
methods of negotiation and mediation, rather than through court action. Therefore, it is important for board members
to be capable of resolving disputes themselves and thus they should continue to be trained in the skills needed to do so.
However, we discovered that respondents find some disputes more difficult to resolve, and the most complicated toresolve are those that involve human factors such as competing factions and emotions. Our survey uncovered a skills
gap in training for these types of issues, and we learned that the vast majority of respondents would appreciate moretraining in these soft skills. Training in how to handle different personalities and emotions (as well as increased training
in negotiation and mediation skills) would equip boards to tackle disputes that are frequently extremely difficult becauseof board members’ reluctance to address these human factors.

Conflicts in the Boardroom Survey

13

IFC CG Group’s
DONOR
partners

2121 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20433 USA
Tel: +1 (202) 458 8097
cgsecretariat@ifc.org
www.ifc.org/corporategovernance
For information requests and general inquiries about Corporate Governance
Dispute Resolution Program or this publication, please contact Alexey Volynets
at avolynets@ifc.org and Frederick Way at info@cedr.com.