It is alarming to see how much damage one individual can inflict on a good organization. Decision -making teams are sometimes frustrated by individuals who act selfishly or in bad faith, are defensive to feedback, lobby behind the scene to promote narrow interests, and undermine collective decisions.

When faced with difficult behaviour, it is human and natural to assign blame to the person: Why is he doing this to us? Doesn't she care? Why does he need to be so political? Can't she leave her ego at home and work with everyone for the good of the organization?

Typical responses to difficult members include disciplinary procedure (suspension, dismissal, or a motion of censure), capitulation ("people don't change"), or bypassing the individual. An example of the latter is when several board members coordinate their actions via a signaling system, to ensure that no one seconds a motion made by a member they don't like, or that everyone votes against it.

The above responses focus exclusively on the individual as the cause of the problem, when the problem is likely to be the decision-making system. If the system functions well only in times of peace and harmony and can be severely undermined by just one person, then it is not a very strong system.

Key ingredients in a decision-making system include:

• Clear lines of communications and accountability: Who does what and who tells whom what to do?
• Processes to monitor the group's performance and that of each member.
• Regular exchanges of honest and direct feedback among members.
• Dispute prevention and detection systems and dispute resolution procedures.
• A code of conduct that is well understood and respected, covering topics like core values, decision-making standards, and confidentiality and conflict of interest guidelines.
• The ability to say no to an individual with broader interests in mind.

It is suggested that you consider how many of the above ingredients are now in place in your organization. If not, the best time to introduce them is when things are harmonious and people are working well with one another. It is much more difficult to do so amidst a major dispute.

A strong decision-making system will give your group the tools it needs to deal effectively with dysfunctions. Suppose a member always champions the same cause and, as a result of this, other members tune out as soon as he begins to speak. The cure to this situation may be direct, honest and principle-based feedback.

The feedback should not be accusatory: "You only care about one thing and you'd better change that." Instead, it should be driven by a desire to deliver better outcomes for the organization: "We need your help. During our meetings some members appear to stop listening when you speak, possibly because you often seem to be championing the same cause. This is problematic. It means members may miss important points that you are making. We need your knowledge and ideas to help us make better decisions. Here is what I think you could do to help: _______. What do you think?"