Politics are a key part of any group of people, but you suspect perhaps it is an even bigger part of senior leadership teams, where political acumen is such a key part of climbing the greasy pole in the first place.

A recent INSEAD paper explores the dynamics in the boardroom and finds that relationships are often far more fluid than previously thought, with temporary coalitions forming to help persuade and cajole CEOs.

Team dynamics

The researchers videotaped the meetings of a couple of teams to explore the dynamics of each, including eye contact, emotional tone, and body posture.  Each of the members of the team was also interviewed after each meeting.  Five core patterns of engagement emerged from the meetings:

• Congruous, in which interactions were mostly amicable, and the CEO and other members of the team generally saw eye-to-eye from the beginning.  This environment suited rational argument to involve others in the conversation.
• Cooperative, in which there is an initial disagreement between the CEO and their team that becomes resolved through constructive discussions.
• Spectating, in which the CEO takes on a background role while the team discusses the issue at hand.  These discussions can often be heated, so it can be wise to stay out until emotions cool.
• Adversarial, in which there is a strong disagreement between the team and the CEO, which creates a hostile atmosphere and an often polarized decision-making process.  Such a scenario requires strong political and diplomatic skills to allow coalitions to be built.
• Undermining, in which the CEO and a board member are in opposition and the CEO attempts to use their status to undermine the board member.

A fluid approach

The researchers found that while each of these approaches is distinct, they would often appear multiple times during a single meeting.  For instance, boards can be both cooperative and congruous when discussing one issue but undermining and adversarial when discussing another.

This highlights the nuance present in board-based discussions that the researchers believe has not always been reflected in previous research on the topic of board discussions.  Given the high-stakes nature of the boardroom, the researchers also found that those with deft political skills were often those who thrived by being able to behave in the right way at the right time to establish and maintain relationships.

The authors hope that their work can help senior managers to better understand and navigate this complex environment.  They suggest that a good guide is to explore whether you’re personally aligned with either the CEO or your peers, before then exploring how much energy they’re devoting to the issue at hand.  These simple questions can help to guide how you should personally respond yourself.