Can you spell C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T? That seems to be the theme for recent boardroom headlines.  Whether its David Boies wearing many hats at Theranos or Ursula Burns not wanting to be pulled in two directions, no good comes from unmanaged conflict. And let’s be honest, avoiding conflict is simply tacit acceptance of it.  Take the Redstone-CBS-Viacom situation for example: the intertwined history of the two media giants is fascinating. While the business relationships are easily fraught with conflict, there is no reason that the board governance needs to be saddled with the same. Nonetheless, until this week Sumner Redstone was Executive Chair of both companies and upon his resignations, each company’s CEO was named as Chair as well. Leslie Moonves for CBS and Philippe Dauman in the case of Viacom. That’s hardly a move that will impress ISS or most independently minded, much less activist, investors.  Further, Shari Redstone, who remains on both boards but declined the opportunity to serve as Viacom’s Non-Executive Chairman, loudly disagreed with the Dauman appointment on the basis that it is a conflict since he already serves on the board of the family’s Trust, the majority stockholder of Viacom. Shari Redstone asserts that the company needs an “independent voice.” 

Bottom line: when an org chart is needed to explain a board member’s involvement with related entities, you know you’ve got a problem. How many hats can one person wear and still primarily (much less singularly) serve the people he/she is asked to represent? How many jobs can one person have and still give “it” 100%? How much conflict should any shareholder, lender, employee or business partner accept before they realize that they are not the most important entity being served?  Yes, multi-tasking has its place in the demanding roles we play, but sometimes too much multi leads to otherwise avoidable conflict. Your thoughts?

Abby Adlerman is CEO of Boardspan.