The effectiveness of boards largely depends on the quality of interaction among their members. In their study, Marianna Zangrillo, Thomas Keil and Stevo Pavićević analyse typical behavioural patterns that can impair board functioning and show how boards can address these challenges. The study is based on qualitative interviews with more than 120 board chairs and directors across a range of industries and countries.
At the core of the analysis lies the observation that individual board members can significantly influence the effectiveness of discussions and decision-making processes through their behaviour. These dynamics often manifest in recurring patterns that lead to inefficient discussions, delays, and a decline in decision quality.
The study identifies three main types of difficult board members: so-called passive passengers, dominators, and misguided experts. Passive members participate only minimally in discussions and fail to actively contribute their expertise, resulting in missed perspectives. Dominators, by contrast, tend to control discussions and overshadow others, thereby limiting diversity of thought. Misguided experts possess substantial expertise but often focus excessively on details, losing sight of the broader strategic perspective.
Despite their different manifestations, these behavioural patterns share similar consequences: they slow decision-making, hinder balanced discussion, and can erode trust within the board. As a result, boards find it more difficult to fulfil their core role in providing strategic guidance and effective oversight.
Against this backdrop, the study develops a practical framework for managing difficult board members. A key element is establishing clear expectations for behaviour and collaboration, as well as shared norms for discussion and decision-making. In addition, the importance of early and constructive feedback is emphasised in order to address problematic behaviours at an early stage.
Another important lever lies in the design of board structures and processes. Clearly defined agendas, structured discussion formats, and effective moderation can foster balanced participation and reduce unproductive dynamics. In cases where behavioural issues cannot be resolved, escalation measures, including the removal of individual members, may become necessary.
Particular importance is placed on the role of the chair, who serves as a moderator and coordinator of board activities. The chair ensures a balanced discussion environment, integrates diverse perspectives, and safeguards the quality of decision-making processes. At the same time, the analysis shows that the chair can also become part of problematic dynamics, particularly in cases of dominant behaviour, which may require collective corrective action.
Overall, the study demonstrates that board effectiveness is not defined by the absence of difficult personalities, but by their ability to manage diverse behaviours constructively and integrate them into productive decision-making processes.
At the core of the analysis lies the observation that individual board members can significantly influence the effectiveness of discussions and decision-making processes through their behaviour. These dynamics often manifest in recurring patterns that lead to inefficient discussions, delays, and a decline in decision quality.
The study identifies three main types of difficult board members: so-called passive passengers, dominators, and misguided experts. Passive members participate only minimally in discussions and fail to actively contribute their expertise, resulting in missed perspectives. Dominators, by contrast, tend to control discussions and overshadow others, thereby limiting diversity of thought. Misguided experts possess substantial expertise but often focus excessively on details, losing sight of the broader strategic perspective.
Despite their different manifestations, these behavioural patterns share similar consequences: they slow decision-making, hinder balanced discussion, and can erode trust within the board. As a result, boards find it more difficult to fulfil their core role in providing strategic guidance and effective oversight.
Against this backdrop, the study develops a practical framework for managing difficult board members. A key element is establishing clear expectations for behaviour and collaboration, as well as shared norms for discussion and decision-making. In addition, the importance of early and constructive feedback is emphasised in order to address problematic behaviours at an early stage.
Another important lever lies in the design of board structures and processes. Clearly defined agendas, structured discussion formats, and effective moderation can foster balanced participation and reduce unproductive dynamics. In cases where behavioural issues cannot be resolved, escalation measures, including the removal of individual members, may become necessary.
Particular importance is placed on the role of the chair, who serves as a moderator and coordinator of board activities. The chair ensures a balanced discussion environment, integrates diverse perspectives, and safeguards the quality of decision-making processes. At the same time, the analysis shows that the chair can also become part of problematic dynamics, particularly in cases of dominant behaviour, which may require collective corrective action.
Overall, the study demonstrates that board effectiveness is not defined by the absence of difficult personalities, but by their ability to manage diverse behaviours constructively and integrate them into productive decision-making processes.
