Igniting hidden boardroom battles
What’s the biggest battle in Toronto’s corporate boardroom? Perhaps it’s about adopting generative AI? Or maybe about DEI or perhaps ESG? The biggest flashpoint, as revealed by a recent Gartner survey, is the return-to-office (RTO) strategies that are stirring the pot, igniting fiery debates among the top-tier executives.
The survey unveils a startling revelation: 74 per cent of human resources executives believe RTO policies are the biggest breeding grounds for boardroom clashes. The next most popular candidate, at 52 per cent, is workplace flexibility.
And investors are watching: increasingly, they are using RTO and WFH policies to decide whether to invest. Boardroom clashes are definitely not attractive for investors. That’s especially the case since research reveals it’s the desire for control that’s driving topdown RTO mandates, rather than bottom-line motivations.
Digging into the root of these boardroom battles, it’s clear that a lot of the friction comes from common thinking traps — cognitive biases. First off, there’s confirmation bias, where leaders only see what they want to see. If they’re dead set on getting everyone back in the office, they might ignore any evidence that flexible work could be just as good, or even better. This onesided view can cause a lot of tension among the team.
Then there’s anchoring bias. This is when the first thing leaders hear or think of sticks with them too much, shading everything that comes after. So, if the first idea thrown out in a meeting is to bring everyone back full-time, that option might unfairly dominate the conversation, shutting down creative alternatives and stirring up more conflict.
To get past these biases and find common ground, leaders need to first admit these biases exist. Open, honest conversation is key. By welcoming different viewpoints and actively listening, they can start to break down these mental barriers. This approach doesn’t just shed light on new possibilities for RTO strategies; it also helps everyone feel heard and valued, paving the way for agreement. My experience consulting for Canadian organizations across different sectors has shown that the path to harmonizing boardroom opinions on RTO is both challenging and rewarding.
Take, for example, a mid-sized tech firm I worked with, divided over adopting a full return or a hybrid work model. Through structured discussions and presenting data that highlighted the benefits of a hybrid approach, we managed to bridge the gap between the conflicting parties, leading to a decision that balanced productivity with flexibility, thus reducing boardroom friction.
Similarly, a regional bank struggling with operational disruptions due to divergent views on RTO policies found a way forward through workshops aimed at addressing cognitive biases. These sessions fostered open communication and a comprehensive evaluation of various RTO models, ultimately leading to a consensus on a flexible approach that harmonized in-office collaboration with remote work benefits.
Moreover, a prominent law firm, grappling with internal discord over RTO strategies, achieved consensus through structured dialogues and evidence-based insights into successful RTO implementations in similar firms. This collaborative approach led to the adoption of a flexible “core hours” model, which accommodated diverse preferences and facilitated a smooth operational transition.
These instances illustrate the critical need to tackle cognitive biases head-on and foster an environment of empathy and open dialogue. By doing so, organizations can overcome boardroom conflicts and chart a course toward a consensus that reflects the evolving dynamics of the modern workplace.
The debates raging in Toronto’s corporate boardrooms over RTO policies are more than mere logistical considerations; they are indicative of deeper challenges in corporate governance and decision-making. By acknowledging the influence of cognitive biases and promoting a culture of open discourse and empathy, companies can navigate through the turbulence towards a consensus.
This journey, while fraught with challenges, is essential for fostering a strategic, harmonious and productive work environment that aligns with the needs of a diverse workforce and the expectations of a dynamic market.
GLEB TSIPURSKY, DUBBED THE ‘OFFICE WHISPERER’ BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, IS CEO OF THE FUTURE-OF-WORK CONSULTANCY DISASTER AVOIDANCE EXPERTS AND AUTHOR OF SEVEN BOOKS, INCLUDING “RETURNING TO THE OFFICE AND LEADING HYBRID AND REMOTE TEAMS,” AND “CHATGPT FOR THOUGHT LEADERS AND CONTENT CREATORS.”
By acknowledging the influence of cognitive biases … companies can navigate through the turbulence towards a consensus. — Gleb Tsipursky