The Commissioner greeted me with an encouraging message. Ah, the mandatory number, the self-assessment is back. Well, everything is going well. Just write that down. The atmosphere in the Council is good and the board consists of capable people. I have no worries and I can't imagine my colleagues saying otherwise.
This promises to be an interesting evaluation. So much tidiness in a complicated position as a supervisor often reveals that something is going on. Here we see the cloak of charity, draped over the board table like a blanket.
But fortunately, the council consists of several people. Where one says nothing is wrong, the other comments about the mutual dynamics. And so the evaluator immediately has the first topic for the self-assessment. Why is it that these observations are different and are not discussed at a regular meeting? How can such a different picture arise about the same setting?
Meeting is an art and supervision is a profession you will never stop learning. There are so many factors that are important for good supervision. One of the most important factors, however, is board dynamics. How will the consultation be designed and how will the mutual conversation take place. The relationship between the members of the commissioners is one thing. The relationship with the director (s) can then be quite different. In fact, the interview with the director for a self-assessment of a Supervisory Board often provides the most useful and sometimes confrontational reactions.
Meeting is an art and supervision is a profession you will never stop learning
Seemingly insignificant factors play a major role in the mutual dynamics. The meeting room, the size and shape of the conference table, the time of day, where everyone sits and which is often fixed for the rest of the time at the first meeting. The way people come in and the preliminary casual remarks that are made. It all says something. You can also often see the relationship with the driver upon arrival. How is the greeting? Are people in a hurry or do they take time for each other. Do directors and supervisory directors walk into the conference room at the same time? Or does the director have to join an already crowded Supervisory Board room where a heated preliminary meeting took place? Have there been any phone calls about weather beforehand, one-two? Between whom then? Is the meeting already pre-cooked? Who does belong to the “hard core” and who is actually just outside?
Getting a good idea of what is happening here has a major influence on the quality of the meetings and that of supervision.
A good self-assessment addresses these kinds of aspects. How well do we understand each other and how openly and unbiased do we deal with each other? During the self-assessment, we normally like to discuss the question of what do we do together, such as, what is the meeting order, do we have sufficient information to make a decision. Is the organization 'in control'. Of course, these substantive issues are important and are often already well discussed among themselves.
The conversation about how we do that together is much more difficult. How do we deal with each other. Do we dare to talk to each other about behavior, what is the quality of the way of meeting, of asking questions instead of judging. Do we know each other's characters, we recognize the underlying emotions, the insidious irritations. Broadly speaking, this is also about whether we feel safe enough within the company. We feel valued so that we can discuss dilemmas properly. That doesn't just come to the table.
De Bestuurskamer offers an external evaluator, who discusses the dynamics in the conversation and asks them to recognize these processes and then discuss them with each other.
It's a good thing that the self-assessment is a mandatory number. Investing in mutual understanding and how to deal with each other is the start of better supervision.
