Sometimes, just getting two people to agree on what to have for dinner or what movie to see on a Saturday night can seem like an overwhelming task. Now imagine trying to get five, seven or nine people to make million-dollar decisions that can affect hundreds, even thousands, of people. That’s the challenge that faces co-op and condominium boards each and every day.

There’s an art to building consensus among disparate members of a community. After all, the people elected to the board may come from a different backgrounds and different circumstances. They may have conflicting views on money or vendors or even what color the lobby or the clubhouse should be painted. Add to that the fact that some board members come to the table eager to make changes or perhaps pursue their own agendas, and the potential for disagreements becomes significant.

Working Toward Consensus

It takes hard work to create an environment conducive to open discussion and collegial debate, but with the right attitude and a willingness to listen, compromise and thinking about the big picture, board meetings can hum along smoothly.

“If one is trying to build consensus, the biggest challenge is that it takes time,” says Peter Glassman, executive director of Mediation Matters in Albany, New York. “For some people, that can be frustrating and become what appears to be gridlock.” Most successful boards require the right mix of personalities. “You need people with patience, an openness to having different views and a mutual understanding,” Glassman says. “First, seek to understand, and then to be understood.”

That understanding should include discussions of governance as well, says Myriam Laberge, MA, an International Association of Facilitators (IAF) certified professional facilitator with Vancouver’s Masterful Facilitation Institute. “As part of a board’s training, a couple of hours should be set aside to talk about what effective governance would look like,” she says. Boards should ask themselves, “If we were a highly successful board, what would we look like? What might support us in achieving what we want, and what might prevent us?” The discussion should not be driven by any one person. It should be a dialogue, she says. “Dialogues are conversations that help people learn together.”

It also helps to make sure that no board member is confused or at sea about their purpose within the organization. Successful boards understand what they’re there for—and have strong leadership.

According to Gary A. Poliakoff, a founding principal with Becker & Poliakoff, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based law firm with offices in Red Bank and New York City, "The role of the leader is to refocus the group on the defined objective and to work towards a common solution. This isn't a question about being right all the time—it's a question of reaching a consensus, but you do need people who are willing to make decisions. One of the greatest difficulties in dealing with board action is those who lack that willingness.There all types of people and different personalities, and when they go off in a dysfunctional way, you need a strong leader to keep them on track and control the debate."

Michael Cervelli of Cervelli Management in North Bergen agrees, adding that "there has to be a plan and not a personal agenda. Everyone should realize that the plan is for the good of all. That makes it a lot easier, because you've taken personalities and personal agendas out of the equation."

Sometimes, though, fractious personalities make for a fractious board. The professionals all agree that there are those people who simply thrive on conflict, and who can be so difficult that even their good points get lost in a maelstrom of controversy. Not only does this make things uncomfortable for other board members, it also reduces the effectiveness of that individual. “Some people are conflict junkies," says Glassman. "They are by their nature contrarian. And sometimes when we select people for the board, they may have the expertise but they may not be group decision makers.” When that personality type finds its way into the group, “the group shouldn’t be shy” about discussing it with the person, Glassman says. “It’s worth approaching someone and saying, ‘maybe this role is not the role for you.’ In the long run, it saves everyone a lot of pain.”

Not All About Personalities

Curmudgeons and conflict junkies are not the only root causes of dissension in the board room, however. The size of the group can play a role as well in how well the unit functions, too. “The size of the group matters,” says Dr. Jasmine Martirossian, a Boston-based expert in group dynamics and strategic planning. “With five people, for example, it’s easier to reach agreement” than with nine or a dozen.

Sometimes, as counter intuitive as it sounds, boards can get off track or splinter because they get along too well. “Small groups have unique dynamics,” says Martirossian. “They can become really friendly, and become so close and cozy that they feel uncomfortable challenging each other.” That can be the beginning of the end for planning and problem solving that makes a difference.

Stagnation can cause formerly effective groups to lose their way as well. “A lack of new blood can be a problem,” Glassman says. “If people have had a history of conflict, it can be hard to build trust again. It’s important to change dynamics, and think of the group as a living, breathing, organic entity.”

It's also important to hire professionals whom you trust, and then let them do their job, says Cervelli. "You’re always guided by your bylaws and common sense. If the professionals that you hire—a management company, or an engineer for example—are saying to you 'Here are the priorities of things that should be done, and they should be done in this order,' listen to that. This is what they do. They know what they’re doing, they’re experienced with these sorts of things."

Getting the Job Done

No matter what started a given conflict, most people just want it to end. Thankfully, there are plenty of options for getting a group to start talking with each other rather than at each other. First, Glassman says, it’s important to remember that not all disagreements are unhealthy. “It’s easy in our field to say, 'Let’s get this resolved,' but we’re all meant to have different views. You don’t have to resolve everything.”

That being said, the professionals agree that people must remember to listen to one another. It’s one important way to make sure people do not have to shout—metaphorically or literally—to be heard. “Managing conflict successfully is about listening,” Glassman says. “It’s about honoring people’s intentions and the opinions of others.” Good listening helps bring “more light than heat” to the conversation.

It also helps to focus on the issues rather than personalizing them, says Laberge. “Under any problem, there is a root cause,” she says. “Sometimes people ascribe ill intent to what others are saying when really there are good intentions underneath. Don’t assume people are coming from a place of ill intent. Be hard on the issues, but soft on people.”

Poliakoff agrees. "The greatest fear among laymen is often that they may be wrong. Even juries have that problem: 'Are we right?' The answer is, this isn't a case of being right. Consensus isn't called the right decision. It's in the exercise of business judgment based upon the information and acting in a reasonable and prudent way. That's the test. It's not whether it's right or wrong. It's whether or not there is a rational basis for the action taken based upon what a reasonable person would have done under same facts and circumstances."

Making decisions can be easier for a large group if the choices are whittled down, perhaps through committee discussions ahead of major votes or through fact-finding efforts before details are presented. That helps avoid the old trap of “whoever talks the loudest, gets heard” habits that can form when one dominant personality takes hold of a meeting. “A single opinion rising without alternative can be disruptive,” says Martirossian. “And it’s disruptive to look at a large number of perspectives. Try just looking at three alternatives.”

Avoiding dissension also entails flexibility, especially when it comes to decision-making. Martirossian has seen groups that falter because they have trouble changing or seeing things differently when new facts or issues arise. “It’s important to make a decision but not be so married to the idea that it can’t be changed,” she says.

It can help boards to remember Martirossian’s earlier observation that groups that are focused are more successful. That’s why she recommends having a strategic plan that looks at the building’s priorities. Creating one should involve the whole board, which generates full buy-in and helps set the group’s overall agenda for two or three years. That doesn't mean it's cast in stone, however—the board should still revisit the plan each year. “Given the rapidly-changing environment [they work in], they have to look at it regularly,” Martirossian says. “You have to be agile enough to respond to imperatives. But having a consistency of purpose really focuses the group and can make all the difference.”

Turning to Outside Help

If, despite their best efforts, boards still end up spending most of their time battling conflict rather than solving problems, they can turn to outside help. Professional facilitators can bring a fresh, outside perspective to the matters at hand and help group participants solve problems without taking sides.

Having a convener who stays neutral running a meeting can help tone down defensiveness and divisiveness as well. Glassman cites one group he has worked with that has had enormous success as community advocates working with the police to improve service. “The convener came into the meetings with the best of intentions,” he says. “He was open to hearing criticism and sincerely looked to improve. He didn’t argue, didn’t defend—he simply asked more questions. It’s important for a meeting to be run by a person considered neutral. It can be someone internal, but if they become an advocate for one position or another, then the person should step aside.”

It also helps if the person running the meeting—and actually, everyone involved in the meeting, understands that there are two basic personality types when it comes to group discussions. “There are those who are spontaneous thinkers, who can think on their feet or who formulate their answers by talking things through,” says Laberge. “And there are reflective thinkers, who like to gather their thoughts and won’t speak right off the bat.”

Consequently, the spontaneous people will be the ones who respond first and may dominate the conversation, leaving the reflective thinkers out of the dialogue until the very end—or even completely. “Tell people about this dynamic and then, when it comes time to discuss something, invite everyone to take a few minutes to gather their thoughts, perhaps write them down, and then do a go-around, giving everyone the same amount of time to talk.” This ensures that everyone gets a chance to be heard, no matter what personality type.

The pressure on co-op and condo board members can be enormous. They have been given the responsibility of caring for their home and for the homes of their neighbors and friends. As Poliakoff points out,

"The success of those communities hinges on the willingness of individuals from community to volunteer, to serve on the boards of the committee—and these are not trained professionals. Although there are problems for sure, for the most part the volunteers do a fairly good job, particularly when they are willing to work with professionals...who can help provide the information they need to make decisions."

Liz Lent is a freelance writer, teacher and a frequent contributor to The New Jersey Cooperator. Additional reporting by David Chiu.