Relationship Managers are frontline staff who engage with clients – both individuals and organisations. They place a high value on relationships and service – being able to respond appropriately to the needs of clients. Individual Relationship managers often follow their own customisations of organisational approaches in order to serve their clients well.

The CRM Project Team, headed up by the COO, place a high value on standardised processes, efficiency and data integrity. These values are formally described in the project outcomes, part of the business case approved by the Board.

The COO has expressed frustration with the low take up of the CRM by Relationship Managers and is now considering a mandated approach, with performance management to ensue if a Relationship Manager does not comply.

There is clearly a clash of values and a collaborative path and non-combative approach needs to be found where the occupational values of both groups are acknowledged, appreciated and can be legitimately responded to, without resorting to threats to achieve compliance.

Ultimately both employees and clients will benefit from a scenario where work is based on all five of the above values.

Practices that promote inclusivity:

• a speak-up culture where directors can voice their concerns before the board makes a decision

• revisiting the purpose of the organisation at the beginning of the meeting

• strong utilisation of board committees to give a deeper experience of group discussion and interaction that can be used to process an issue or opportunity before considering it as a whole board

• aware of the need for greater diversity in the board (part of board review processes) and

• have made progress on this in relation to gender and age

• taken initiative to develop new directors through participation in a board internship scheme.

  
  

Room for improvement:

• the board is large (12 directors plus 1 intern) and it is challenging for quieter voices to find space to give input

• the agenda is usually very crowded - this can mean time is not available at times to surface the diversity of views and to process disagreement appropriately

• the chair could be more assertive in directing the focus to those who have not yet spoken and even inviting another director to speak on a particular issue

• the work of committees is helpful, but their work needs to be processed by the full diversity of the board - counter groupthink bias and confirmation bias.

• the diversity of board committees needs to be considered, as well as the board as a whole

• further improvements in diversity in relation to age, training and employment would improve the board function.

Establishing objectives aligned with organisational goals—such as delivering a project that is both efficient and compliant—could underscore the complementary nature of governance and delivery.

·         The Chair going around the table for everyone’s input.

·         Utilizing committees for more diverse experience

Better support

·         More diverse board in age, gender and geographical

·         Improvement in training

The sustainability team was committed to reducing energy use and improving environmental performance, taking a longer-term view based on organisational responsibility and ESG commitments. In contrast, the operations team was more concerned with maintaining efficiency, meeting short-term targets, and managing immediate costs.

This difference in priorities led to friction. The sustainability team saw the changes as essential, while operations viewed them as disruptive and costly.

At its core, the conflict came down to different professional value systems:

One group focused on long-term environmental and social impact

The other focused on immediate business performance and output

The sustainability team was committed to reducing energy use and improving environmental performance, taking a longer-term view based on organisational responsibility and ESG commitments. In contrast, the operations team was more concerned with maintaining efficiency, meeting short-term targets, and managing immediate costs.

This difference in priorities led to friction. The sustainability team saw the changes as essential, while operations viewed them as disruptive and costly.

At its core, the conflict came down to different professional value systems:

One group focused on long-term environmental and social impact

The other focused on immediate business performance and output.

Rather than treating this as a problem to eliminate, it should be approached as a form of diversity in thinking.

There are a few ways this could have been handled more effectively:

Aligning the purpose

Connecting sustainability goals to business outcomes (such as cost savings over time, risk reduction, and employer branding) would help both groups see shared value.

Encouraging open discussion

Bringing both teams together in structured conversations allows each side to explain their priorities and constraints, which builds understanding and reduces assumptions.

Using evidence to guide decisions

Presenting clear data, such as financial projections and operational impacts, helps shift the discussion from opinion to informed decision-making.

Involving both groups early

Co-designing solutions

gives both sides ownership and reduces resistance.

Leadership setting the tone

Leaders play a key role by reinforcing that different perspectives are expected and helpful, not undesirable.

Structured agendas with clear time allocation ensured all business units had equal opportunity to contribute.

Pre-read materials distributed in advance

allowed participants to prepare, reducing bias toward more vocal or dominant contributors.

Chairperson actively invited input from each member, preventing dominance by a few voices.

Use of hybrid participation tools enabled remote participants to engage equally (chat, polling, digital hand-raising)

Clear decision-making frameworks

(RACI ), making participation transparent and fair.

Respectful facilitation and strong chairing that redirected interruptions and ensured everyone was heard.

Opportunities for Improvement:

Cultural diversity under-leveraged. Some team members from different cultural backgrounds were less vocal

Insufficient psychological safety signals, while respectful, there was hesitancy to challenge senior leaders openly

Leaders could explicitly encourage dissenting views.

Time pressure limiting deep discussion

on complex issues led to rushed meetings.

More time or separate deep-dive sessions would improve inclusion of nuanced perspectives

A conflict I observed within a health service was the decision to manage the pharmacy department at a neighbouring health service. This resulted in very little consultation with staff and the loss of an experienced manager.

Although the intention of the restructure aimed to improve efficiency across the region, it unfortunately highlighted differences in occupational values. Senior leaders prioritised standardisation, resource sharing, and regional coordination whilst pharmacy staff valued the local leadership, autonomy, timely decision-making, and strong relationships with clinicians within their own health service.

The limited consultation led to a lack of trust and frustration in the change process. The staff felt their experience and understanding of local service needs had not been considered. Since the restructure, communication became harder, decision-making was slower, and pharmacists experienced an increase in pressure due to more responsibilities with the reduction in local leadership.

This conflict could have been addressed through a more inclusive approach. Staff could have been consulted before implementing the restructure which would have provided an opportunity for management to understand their concerns and potentially see alternative solutions.

Involving the employees impacted would have maintained trust and transparency throughout the process. The experienced highlighted how important it is for employees to feel heard and respected and help to maintain staff engagement and ensure quality of service to consumers.

• Agenda outlining the structure

• Acknowledgment of country

• Actions assigned to members attending

• Opportunity to speak at the end with any further concerns.

Diversity could have been better supported by:

• reducing technical jargon and acronyms

• Online members often go unnoticed and therefore give up on contributing.

• Discussions moved and made quickly with very little time to contribute.

• Lack of diverse representation.

Looking back, the change could have been handled with more timely communication and earlier discussion with everyone affected. Planned meetings, clear explanations about why the change was happening, and structured training for caseworkers would have helped create a smoother transition.

It also would have been important to acknowledge the knowledge and contribution of the research staff and involve them in handing over skills and experience. This may have reduced uncertainty, built trust and helped everyone understand the value each role brought to the service.

One area that could be strengthened is bringing in a wider range of voices.

I think there is value in creating opportunities for young Aboriginal people who are interested in cultural healing to share their perspectives, alongside Elders who bring cultural knowledge, history and community experience.

This would help ensure governance decisions are informed not only by organisational priorities, but also by the voices of different generations and the communities the organisation serves.