This product has already been purchased.
When organisational psychologist Robert Newman wants to explain why boardrooms descend into friction, or suddenly unlock extraordinary performance, he reaches for a metaphor no-one sees coming — the Gallagher brothers of Oasis.
From decades-long feuds — marked by public spats and the band’s demise — to a reunion tour that saw them hit the stage together, the Oasis brothers’ story proves that aligned purpose can turn chaos into success. It’s an unlikely comparison, but their famously combustible dynamic offers a neat analogy for how differences play out around the board table.
Liam, with his mercurial charisma, broadens perspectives and expands the realm of possibility, while Noel with his commercial instinct and relentless discipline, transforms big ideas into a focused, scalable operation.
“You’ve got one side that’s emotional, one side that’s intellectual and kind of grubby,” says Newman, a faculty member at the AICD where he co-facilitates the Boardroom Mastery program.
“Liam would be a founder, comes up with a great idea, energetic, speaks to vision. Noel would be the operations guy. He’s the intellectual who turns it into a moneymaking venture.”
A boardroom may be dominated by Noel-like sensibilities, explains Newman, but even when the dynamic is a little more Oasis, the tension between contrasting personalities can be harnessed to create extraordinary results if mutual respect and a shared purpose are attained.
“There are two fundamentals required for collaboration,” he says. “The first is mutual respect. The two parties get on well enough that they can talk to each other and respect that the other has useful contributions in our work together.
“The second requirement is a mutual purpose. We actually have something we want to work on together and we can’t achieve that thing without working on it together.”
Despite their opposite temperaments, Newman notes both Liam and Noel-like figures are essential to achieving shared goals. The Liams widen perspectives and notice black swan risks, while the Noels narrow the field and drive decisions.
But what happens when those two pillars — mutual respect and purpose — collapse and the two sides are seemingly beyond reconciliation?
In boardrooms, says Newman, tensions rarely stem from personal dislike, instead they reflect differences in style, pace and risk appetite. Most directors can accommodate varied approaches — until the “underlying substance” of the relationship frays.
“The way people behave and the way people think, the differences between people often grates on us,” he says. “Another person’s weird tic or the way they preface all their words with, ‘well, um’… these little idiosyncrasies annoy us in the way people behave, the way they communicate and the way they think. Those frustrations get higher when the stakes are higher. So we become less tolerant of people.”
Tension is also heightened by what Newman calls group immaturity, where boards lack a grounded understanding of their own capacity.
“If a group is immature, but people actually realise that, ‘Hey I’m going to be on the hook for the decision we make’, you start to get a lot of angst,” he says. “People get upset and bothered. That’s around the fact that the group is not mature enough to understand its needs.”
Yet, he adds, the very same tensions that can undermine cohesion can also fuel innovation and performance — the secret sauce that unlocks success — but only if handled with care.
Newman emphasises the importance of structured processes that allow all perspectives to be voiced, tested and ultimately shaped into decisions. “One way to reduce people’s sensation of pressure is to have meeting processes that progress things through a decision-making analysis,” he suggests.
“There’s this kind of iterative process that moves the problem forward towards hopefully something we can all agree on… That process allows people to manage diversity.”
Boards, he cautions, should not aim for consensus on every decision. Complex problems, incomplete information and high stakes make full agreement unlikely, but a structured process ensures fairness and rigour.
“We aim for consensus through the processes of listening to others’ views, taking them into account in the final conclusion, like a democracy,” he says. “Allowing people to vote, counting the votes and accounting for them in the final decision.”
Ultimately, says Newman, boardrooms are not social clubs, but are engines of collective wisdom — meaning individual brilliance matters, but so does humility.
“One of the most powerful things in a boardroom is when you walk in with a fairly solid view on an issue you’re about to make a decision on, but after listening to your colleagues, you’re convinced to give up your view. That’s a very powerful thing.”
For Newman, the Gallagher brothers offer more than rock ’n’ roll mythology — they provide a lens for understanding human dynamics. The interplay of charisma and discipline, impulsiveness and method, risk-taking and caution, can define not just bands, but teams, boards and organisations.
The tension is inevitable; the key is learning how to dance in it.
“If it is harnessed, that concept of creative tension sounds like a positive thing,” says Newman.
And like a great Oasis song, the magic comes when all the discordant notes combine into something bigger than the sum of their parts.
Boards aren’t social clubs: They’re not groups of friends and don’t meet daily like an executive team. However, directors should be friendly, know each other’s expertise, backgrounds and experiences, and view everyone around the table as a resource for collective decision-making.
Know who’s around the table and what they contribute: Understand each director’s professional experience, governance knowledge and relevant expertise so that input is weighted appropriately. For example, listen to the CFO on commercial issues, not the HR manager.
Be willing to be flexible: Directors should be independently minded, but open to persuasion. One of the most powerful outcomes in a boardroom is being convinced to change your view after listening to colleagues. Boards work best when collective wisdom outweighs individual opinion.
Detach ego from ideas to reduce competitive tension: Healthy boards require separating personal identity from one’s ideas. Brainstorming exercises, where ideas are pooled anonymously, help focus on collective solutions rather than individual ownership or ego.
Latest news
Already a member?
Login to view this content