Anyone following recent developments at the Drents Museum, the Groninger Museum, the Noordbrabants Museum or the Nederlands Fotomuseum will see different issues, different directors and different circumstances in each case. Yet there is one common thread running through all these examples. The greatest risks often arise not because directors or supervisory board members fail to fulfil their responsibilities, but because they gradually come to understand one another less well. Not because they do not listen, but because they view the same reality through different ways of communicating, weighing up options and making decisions.<\/p>\n
Effective supervision is usually described in terms of independence, expertise, integrity and governance. These are, without a doubt, the cornerstones of a professional supervisory board. At the same time, supervision is (ultimately) a human endeavour. Decisions are made in boardrooms where information is shared, doubts are voiced, conflicts arise and trust is built up or, conversely, slowly erodes. The quality of that interaction often determines whether a board can collectively stand behind difficult decisions.<\/p>\n
It is precisely this area that receives strikingly little attention. Directors undertake training in strategy, finance and risk management. Supervisory board members immerse themselves in legislation, codes of conduct and responsibilities. But how often is there actually any discussion of the way in which people communicate with one another? How many conflicts, in hindsight, turn out not so much to have been differences of opinion on the substance of the matter, but clashes between different ways of thinking, processing information and reacting?<\/p>\n
That insight did not arise during a theoretical exercise, but from dozens of conversations with directors, regulators and entrepreneurs. Together with Anna Lourdes Pereira, I investigated why teams \u2013 all of whom are intelligent, experienced and well-meaning \u2013 can nevertheless get stuck. Pereira brings a unique background to this work. In addition to her PhD in Public Health and Human Factors at Berkeley and further studies at MIT, she spent many years working with founders and leaders at major international technology companies such as Google, Meta and Microsoft. There, she witnessed first-hand how communication patterns can determine the success or failure of organisations. At the same time, she immersed herself intensively in the relationship between neurodiversity, communication and collaboration. It was precisely this combination of practical experience and specialist knowledge that led to a surprisingly simple starting point:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cPeople differ far less in their intentions than in the conditions under which they are able to communicate effectively.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
One person wants to understand the full context before taking a stance. Another, by contrast, thinks out loud and refines their judgement as the conversation progresses. Some find immediate feedback respectful and efficient, whilst others perceive the very same words as confrontational. Some supervisors seek consensus first before raising contentious issues; others believe that a board only functions properly when differences are voiced immediately. Neither approach is superior. Problems only arise when everyone assumes that their own way is the obvious norm.<\/p>\n
We see this reflected in the cultural sector too. The pressure under which organisations operate is increasing. Financial uncertainty, societal expectations, political sensitivities and an increasingly critical public mean that supervisory boards are having to take difficult decisions more frequently. It is precisely under pressure that patterns of communication become apparent which are barely noticeable during quieter periods. Misunderstandings escalate into personal irritations; irritations become stories about intentions; and before anyone realises it, a dynamic emerges in which it becomes increasingly difficult to separate substance from relationship.<\/p>\n
The lessons to be learnt from recent museum cases alone cannot, therefore, be reduced to individual directors or supervisory board members. Every situation has its own facts and circumstances. Ultimately, the legal assessment is a matter for the courts, whilst the administrative assessment lies with the organisations concerned. What these cases do reveal, however, is how vulnerable governance becomes when there is insufficient openness in mutual communication. Good governance requires not only clear powers and responsibilities, but also the ability to genuinely understand one another before drawing conclusions.<\/p>\n
From insight to tool<\/strong><\/h2>\n
With this in mind, Anna and I initially developed a tool for start-up founders called Pattern Mirror. Young companies often grow faster than their internal communication. Differences that are naturally resolved within a small team can later develop into fundamental management problems. The aim was therefore not to judge people, but to make differences visible and open to discussion before they escalate.<\/p>\n
Gradually, we realised that exactly the same mechanisms are at work within supervisory and management boards. We have therefore expanded the platform to include a version specifically developed for directors and supervisory board members. Not as a personality test, assessment tool or selection tool, but explicitly as a reflection tool. The basic principle is that participants voluntarily explore their own communication preferences and then discuss together where differences might lead to friction and, conversely, to better decision-making. The tool does not claim to explain people. It helps people to better understand their collaboration. That distinction is essential. Privacy, voluntary participation and the avoidance of labels are therefore also deliberate guiding principles of the current board version.<\/p>\n
Perhaps that is, ultimately, the most important lesson for the cultural sector. Governance is not just about rules, statutes and supervisory frameworks. It is at least as much about the quality of the discussions that precede decisions. A board that has learnt to address differences before they escalate into conflicts not only improves the quality of its decisions, but also strengthens the mutual trust needed to weather difficult times together.<\/p>\n
The current board version of Pattern Mirror is therefore not the end point of our research, but rather the beginning of it. The tool is available as a free download in Dutch and English so that board members and supervisors in the cultural sector can experiment with it and, above all, suggest ways in which it could be improved. When board members and supervisors learn to understand one another better, differences cease to be a source of division and instead become a prerequisite for better decisions. Anna and I hope that, with the right insights into one another, communication will improve significantly \u2013 in a world that increasingly believes AI will solve all problems\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n