Recambios de mantenimiento

3.5.1 Meeting Rules

"It is during board meetings [that] much of the work of boards is accomplished, and it is here that the processes of group interaction play out in such a substantive way" (Finkelstein, 2003, p. 110). The purpose of meeting rules is to optimise board interaction and subsequent work quality.

Boards use systems and tools (rules and procedures such as meeting procedure rules, voting rules, meeting agendas, decision-making procedures, appointing a leader, recording decisions, etc.) to organize and coordinate their contributions. Groups that follow set procedures tend to be more satisfied with their decision (Nemiroff, Pasmore, & Ford, 1976; Delbecq, Van de Ven & Gustafson, 1975) and as a result may be more committed to their implementation (White & Dittrich, 1980).

Parliamentary procedure is an example of a meeting procedure (Weitzel & Geist, 1998). The parliamentary procedure focuses on how the meeting is conducted

with the underlying principle of protecting and promoting democratic participation. Parliamentary procedure helps structure discussion by specifying the focus of discussion, who may address the topic, how procedural requests are to be raised, how and when decisions are to be made and how the rules for speaking are to be enforced challenged, amended or suspended. Parliamentary procedures are called rules of order or standing orders in most New Zealand organisations (Pitchforth, 1999). Standing orders codify procedures "for protecting the participation rights of majorities, minorities, individuals and absentees" (Ellis & Fisher, 1994, p. 150). Standing orders organize group discussion and provide mechanisms the chair may use to control the garrulous and focus discussion (Pitchforth, 1999).

Critics of parliamentary procedures argue that the procedures are too highly restrictive and do not allow for spontaneous expressions, may stifle creativity, and over control group members' behaviour. The value of a formal procedure may depend upon the situation and several researchers have suggested that particular circumstances may dictate use of particular procedures (Nutt, 1984; Pavitt, 1993; Poole & Desanctis, 1990). However, there appears to be a paucity of research that actually examines the relationship between discussion procedures and appropriate circumstances.

To promote fair participation, it is recommended that some form of rules of order or meeting rules (such as Roberts' rules of order, parliamentary procedure, standing orders etc.) be adopted (Ellis & Fisher, 1994; Harper, 2005; Pitchforth, 1999). "Ample evidence suggests that procedures help groups perform better…if correctly performed formal discussion procedures can be a force for democracy in decision- making, and this fact alone may warrant their employment in institutions in which democracy is valued." (Pavitt, 1993, p. 232). Boards are groups and there are well-established methods to address the problem of limited airtime and maximising member participation. Numerous facilitation techniques promote greater member involvement in debate and encourage the richness of discussion while reducing

the opportunity for one or two people to dominate. These discussion facilitation tools include nominal group technique, dialectical inquiry, the Delphi method, Ishikawa's fishbone diagram, and devil's advocate to name but a few. It is the responsibility of the chair to facilitate the discussion and know and use the most appropriate techniques to achieve an effective board process.

3.5.2 Decision Rules

There are various ways for the group to make a choice; these ways of deciding are called decision rules. In majority rule, each member votes and the solution

receiving the greatest majority of votes is chosen. Consensus decision-making requires all members to agree to the decision.

The majority vote rule has the advantages of being quicker than consensus and preventing impasses (Mannix, Bazerman, & Thompson, 1989). Majority rule ceases the need for discussion and further communication once the majority of group members are satisfied. Dissenting member views and even perhaps

unshared information that is critical to integrative decision-making may be withheld once it becomes obvious that a solution is acceptable to the majority. It is easier for the group to satisfy the majority rule rather than continuing the often-difficult search for an integrative agreement (Mannix et al.).

The advantages of consensus (unanimity-required) decision-making are that it recognises individual preferences and perspectives, and encourages trade-offs that are critical to integrative decision-making. Under consensus rule, the agreed solution must satisfy all group members. However, group norms that promote consensus have been shown to attribute too much value to group members' shared information, ignoring unshared information with a resulting negative impact on the quality of the group's decisions (Postmes et al., 2001). Consensus groups may be "cautious about challenging the value of shared information" (p. 927) unless group norms support independent and critical thought by group members

(Postmes et al., 2001). Comparing conventional interacting groups to consensual groups, Nemiroff et al. (1976) found many advantages for the consensus groups: 1. Consensus groups did not require significantly more time to reach a group decision.

2. Group members were more satisfied with their own and the groups’ performance.

3. Domination by a single group member was likely under consensus rules. 4. When disagreements occurred within the groups, fuller presentation of views was more likely in consensus groups.

5. Consensus groups performed significantly better on decision task.

Thompson et al. (1988) studied negotiation problems using small groups. Negotiation is when two or more parties work together to agree one mutually acceptable solution. Boards of directors appear to negotiate with each other to find the solution acceptable to all. Negotiation was defined as a mixed motive task as it requires both cooperation to achieve a mutually acceptable decision and independence of thought as each negotiator (director) works from his or her own frame of reference. In a board meeting, directors must strive to achieve mutually agreed upon goals while working together in a coordinated and cooperative manner, preserving independence of thought. Mannix defines an integrative decision as “one in which no other agreement exists that all parties would prefer" (Raiffa, 1982, p. 509, as cited in Mannix et al., 1989). Mixed motive groups using majority rule resulted in lower group outcomes and distributed resources more unequally than groups operating under unanimous rule. Thompson’s findings also supported the use of unanimous rather than majority decision rules to increase the probability of integrative agreements in mixed-motive decision-making (Thompson et al., 1988).

Research shows that groups that make decisions as a collective using unanimous decision-making rules make superior decisions compared to groups that make individual decisions with a majority vote or other such decision-making rule

(Nemiroff & King, 1975; Thompson, Mannix, & Bazerman, 1988). The legal structure of the board of directors is such that directors are jointly and severally responsible for the decisions the board makes. In fact, individual directors have no power or authority unless the whole board has delegated some to them, which is rare. This collective decision-making body must find ways to achieve a meeting of the minds to fulfill its decision-making structure as a collective and not as the sum of individuals who make up the collective. For boards of directors, decisions should be of the highest quality achievable and therefore techniques associated with higher quality decisions such as developing critical group norms and adopting the consensual decision rule may be recommended. Improvement in board

decision-making process could lead to an increase in decision quality, which does no harm and may improve organisational performance.

Researchers contend that task and social functions are inseparable in group decision-making (Fisher, 1974). The next section describes input factors categorised as part of the social or relationship dimension of group decision- making.