The heckler’s veto: Navigating dissent among board members

In the world of credit union governance, the importance of open dialogue, spirited debate, and even dissent cannot be overstated. A Board of Directors that encourages unrestricted discussion and differing viewpoints is more likely to make well-rounded, thoughtful decisions. While every voice deserves to be heard, no single voice should have the power to derail the decision-making process or stall important initiatives.

The “Heckler’s Veto” refers to a situation in which a speaker’s expression is curtailed or silenced by the disruptive actions of a dissenting party—often a heckler in the audience. In the context of a Board of Directors, the Heckler’s Veto can be applied to describe a situation where one dissenting board member, by virtue of their opposition or disruptive tactics, delays or even prevents the Board from making critical decisions or taking timely actions.

Because opposing opinions can provide valuable perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked, a well-functioning Board of Directors encourages its members to express their views openly and honestly, even when those views are unpopular or contrary to the majority opinion. However, when disagreement crosses the line from constructive to obstructive, it becomes a hindrance rather than a help.

One East Coast credit union we work with was exploring a merger of equals. On paper, regarding culture, and considering similar strategic ambitions, the potential looked good (at least for an initial Letter of Intent). However, one director was emotionally opposed to the possibility, insisting that members would reject any “watering down” of their credit union. The director’s potent opposition to the idea limited conversation, slowed progress, and ultimately defeated the option. Perhaps it was in the best interests of members. Perhaps not. Of greater concern was the Board’s failure to fully vet the idea, even if a final vote (for or against moving forward) would not be united. The CEO later shared, “In our expectation for unanimity, we missed opportunity.”

Other examples include situations in which a dissenting board member uses their disapproval to unduly influence or halt the Board’s actions, refuses to participate in the decision-making process, insists on endless debate, or threatens to disrupt the Board’s unity. In such cases, the dissenting member effectively wields a veto over the Board’s decisions, not because they have won the argument, but because they have succeeded in delaying or disrupting the process.

For a credit union, the risks associated with the Heckler’s Veto are significant. Credit unions operate in a competitive financial environment where timely decision-making is often critical to success. Whether it involves launching a new product, entering into a partnership, or responding to regulatory changes, the ability to act swiftly and decisively can mean the difference between seizing an opportunity and missing out.

When one board member’s dissent is allowed to paralyze the Board, the credit union risks falling behind its competitors, failing to meet its members’ needs, or relinquishing strategic opportunities. Moreover, a Board that is consistently unable to make decisions due to internal discord can lose the confidence of credit union members, employees, and other stakeholders, leading to broader governance challenges.

To prevent the Heckler’s Veto from undermining effective governance, credit union Boards of Directors should adopt strategies that promote both open dialogue and decisive action. Here are some best practices to consider:

1. Establish clear a decision-making process: Boards should have a well-defined process for decision-making, including when and how to call for a vote. This process should ensure that all voices are heard, but also that decisions are made efficiently and effectively. When a discussion has reached an impasse, the Board should not hesitate to move forward with a vote.
2. Set expectations for constructive dissent: Board members should be encouraged to express dissenting opinions, but they should also be expected to do so constructively. This means participating in discussions in good faith, respecting the views of others, and accepting the outcome of a vote, even if it does not go their way.
3. Utilize a facilitator: A strong meeting facilitator can play a crucial role in managing discussions and ensuring that dissent does not devolve into obstruction. They should guide the Board toward a vote when necessary and address any disruptive behavior that threatens to derail the process.
4. Encourage a culture of respect and collaboration: Boards should cultivate a culture where respect and collaboration are prioritized. This means valuing diverse opinions, but also recognizing that no single member has the right to override the collective judgment of the Board.
5. Document and communicate decisions: Once a decision has been made, it should be clearly documented and communicated to all relevant parties. This ensures that the Board’s actions are transparent and that there is a clear understanding of the path forward.

By fostering a culture that values both constructive dissent and efficient decision-making, Boards of Directors can navigate the challenges of diverse opinions while ensuring that the credit union remains agile, responsive, and effective in serving its members. As credit unions continue to embrace change in how they serve, deliver, and partner for members, Boards should always be ready to explore, investigate, deliberate, and decide.