Written by Michael Szudarek

When a crisis hits, the boardroom can become as uncertain as the world outside. Each director comes with experience, expertise and powerful perspectives — but in instances when speed, clarity or unity are essential, disagreements can slow the response and increase the risk. The issue becomes: how to quickly resolve any disagreement in a productive way so the board can eventually speak with one voice.

One means of alignment is to ground every conversation in the organization’s mission. While board members may be divided about what the appropriate tactical way forward, most board members can find common ground around why the organization exists and who it’s there to serve. When tensions run hot, falling back on that common ground (protecting employees, reassuring customers, safeguarding trust in the community) might push the conversation from differing opinions into shared obligation.

Similarly, one needs to define roles and authority before a crisis ever emerges. Far too often, too many boards waste hours of precious time arguing about who should be authorized to speak and what that individual is allowed to say about the crisis. By pre-designating the spokesperson, empowering executives to act, and identifying when the board should be consulted, an organization preempts paralysis, allowing leaders to move with speed.

Data is also the great neutralizer. In the heat of the moment, some directors may resort to instinct or anecdote. By adding a real-time media monitoring, stakeholder feedback, sentiment analysis, and legal checks and balances, it brings the conversation down to “threats and facts,” which focuses decision-making on what is most essential.

Robust, frank conversations behind closed doors are healthy, as they surface risks and make sure a range of perspectives are considered. But once consensus is reached, forward-looking solidarity is nonnegotiable. There is nothing that undermines credibility faster than board members leaking internal disagreements or sending conflicting messages in public. The board chair or crisis leader should make this expectation very clear: in the room, all voices matter; outside, the board speaks as one.

And yet, sometimes, the best way to bridge alignment gaps is to bring in an outsider specializing in crisis communications. An impartial and experienced voice may help to defuse the situation, offer proven frameworks, and help a board learn from similar situations at other organizations. The outsider’s impartiality helps the board concentrate on solutions, rather than personalities.

Finally, boards are most effective when they rehearse the response. Tabletop exercises and scenario planning sessions provide directors an opportunity to see how lack of alignment slows response. By practicing the moves in advance, they develop muscle memory and confidence. By the time the real crisis comes, they already know how to connect with one another.

Ultimately, alignment isn’t about tuning out other voices — it’s about deftly resolving any differences of opinion. Boards that remain mission-driven, clarify authority, make the most of data, and prepare well in advance achieve the unity that becomes their best asset in times of turmoil.