Diversity without constructive confrontation: the silent paradox in many Management Committees

In recent years, many companies have made real efforts to incorporate diverse profiles into their decision-making bodies. Gender, age, professional background, nationality or style of thinking have fortunately become variables that are considered strategic when designing the composition of management committees.

However, a silent dysfunction is becoming more and more evident: we incorporate diversity, but we do not generate the spaces or dynamics necessary for that diversity to really impact strategic decisions.

The problem is not in who sits at the table, but in how decisions are made

At Saltor Talent we have participated in numerous evaluations of management teams where the same pattern is repeated:

• There are varied profiles, even complementary
• Meetings are “friendly” and “efficient”
• And yet, decisions are validated more by inertia than by conviction

Rapid consensus is prioritized. Open questioning is avoided. And in many cases, the plurality of voices ends up subordinated to the dominant voice, or the traditional mental framework of the CEO.

Why does this happen?

• Lack of training in constructive conflict management. Discrepancy is still seen as a threat, not an asset.
• Excessive deference to formal leadership. In hierarchical cultures, committee members don’t always feel free to openly question.
• Governance designs that prioritize execution over strategic thinking. If everything becomes operational monitoring, where is the substantive debate?

What is being lost?

When cognitive diversity is not activated in decision-making bodies, three essential things are lost:

1. Real strategic innovation: no new ideas emerge if no one challenges the current framework.
2. Controlled risk: collective thinking tends to conformism and reduces the ability to anticipate scenarios.
3. Engagement of the committee members themselves: the most valuable profiles end up disconnecting when they perceive that their contributions do not generate impact (with the corresponding risk of them leaving the organization).

What can organizations do to reverse the situation?

• Strengthen the role of the moderator or strategic facilitator in key meetings.
• Design work dynamics where divergence is not only welcome, but necessary.
• Incorporate individual and collective evaluation processes of the committee, which allow the identification of thinking styles, power dynamics and opportunities for improvement in decision-making.
• Accompany teams with executive coaching focused on activating shared leadership, productive confrontation and strategic listening.
• Invest in specific training in quality debate and critical thinking in the management team.

These levers not only optimize the functioning of the committee but strengthen its legitimacy as a real leadership body. Diversity without space for real debate becomes decorative diversity. And that, in the medium term, does not transform organizations. It only makes up traditional structures.