Today’s CEO is under intense pressure. Increasingly, this pressure is coming from the board.
It is a problem many boards may not even recognize, but one that is also becoming difficult to ignore.
In my work with FTSE-listed directors, chairs, and executives – involving thousands of interviews and collaborations over the last few decades – I’ve seen a clear shift. Boards now request more information than ever before. They want richer data, deeper insights, and greater context to inform their decisions, often in real time, even as CEOs grapple with the day-to-day demands of running the business. Today’s boards expect an almost continuous window on the organization’s operating environment.
This is happening partly because of how the world has changed. But it also reflects the increased scrutiny that boards are facing from a broader group of stakeholders, including regulators and customers. And the stakes are higher than ever.
In today’s business setting, things can change overnight; strategy can be derailed by the events of a single day. Geopolitical instability, the shifting world order, climate change – playing out so dramatically across the globe right now – and the rise and rise of artificial intelligence have created an operating environment that is largely unrecognizable from just 10 years ago.
In this context, boards want earlier warning signs of risk. They want real visibility of emerging issues, detailed scenario analysis, fast and frequent updates, and constant insight into management’s thinking as the situation shifts and evolves. Another factor is the nature of the board itself.
The success of the board today is less contingent on strategy-setting than it is on managing diverse knowledge, synthesizing multiple perspectives, and reconciling contradictions in pursuit of bigger-picture consensus.
Boards have become far more diverse in the last decade or so, and purposefully so. Boards today are composed of directors from substantively different backgrounds – both in terms of demographics and functional expertise. The success of the board today is less contingent on strategy-setting than it is on managing diverse knowledge, synthesizing multiple perspectives, and reconciling contradictions in pursuit of bigger-picture consensus.
At the same time, increasing diversity has changed the kind of information the board needs. A former CFO wants different evidence, asks different questions, and assesses risk differently from a former CHRO, CIO, or technology executive. And while each perspective enriches the conversation, this new diversity also increases demands on the CEO to provide information that is both deep and broad enough for directors to build a shared understanding and develop well-informed ideas.
The direction of travel here is positive. Information sharing matters immensely for governance and decision-making, and diversity matters for gathering diverse perspectives around increasingly complex issues. But in practice, the burden being placed on CEOs is at risk of becoming untenable.
In interviews and work with organizations conducted by me and my colleagues, it is becoming clear that non-stop requests for information and input can grow to dominate executives’ time, taking them away from running the organization, executing its strategy, surfacing threats, pinpointing opportunities, and sustaining performance in this quicksilver, ultra-competitive landscape.
If board demands become excessive, the impact can escalate fast – and can even impinge on the CEO’s ability to lead the business. From cognitive overload to impaired decision-making to burnout, the cumulative effect can undermine not only the CEO’s effectiveness, but the organization’s entire longer-term outlook.
So, what can the chair do to minimize these risks? How can chairs preserve the flow of important information and leverage the undoubted promise of diversity while safeguarding the CEO’s work and well-being?
They are acting as brokers, connecting and mediating relationships between executives, directors, shareholders, and other stakeholders.
From my conversations with chairs around the world, it’s clear that some of the most talented practitioners are taking a more proactive role in facilitating the relationship between their chief executives and directors. They are acting as brokers, connecting and mediating relationships between executives, directors, shareholders, and other stakeholders. Most chairs have always performed this role to some extent, but the most effective chairs I speak to are leaning in far more than before – from acting as executive coach or advisor to actively supporting and sharing some of the burden carried by the CEO and senior executives.
Here are four ways exemplary chairs are doing this.
Chairs do not have the authority to refuse directors’ requests for information. They are, in many respects, first among equals, and they must deploy influence and persuasion rather than formal authority. The most effective chairs I speak to have become highly adept at prioritizing the demands of directors and board committees. How do they do this? By maintaining an ongoing dialogue, listening, and building trust on both sides of the boardroom, sitting down with their CEO to understand priorities and limitations, and attending carefully to directors’ concerns and needs. This practice of information gathering and trust-building provides chairs with the perspective they need to challenge urgency, relevance, and timing where necessary, and hold the line between capacity and overload, while ensuring the most pressing needs remain met. One chair I spoke to was growing increasingly concerned about the time and attention his executive spent responding to directors’ requests for information. His solution: ask the director making the request to also suggest where and how their CEO could recoup time spent fulfilling it. That suggestion was not always followed, but it did encourage individuals to reflect on the additional work and real cost that their requests incurred.
Skilled chairs are also taking a more active role in managing meetings and interactions between directors and CEOs. When the stakes are high and diverse points of view are being exchanged, these chairs will remain alert for any signs of conflict and proactively step in to defuse tension in the room before it escalates into an argument or leaves the executive overwhelmed. Another chair I spoke to said that she would routinely remind all parties that “arguments between directors and chairs were fair game.” But the discussions that risked becoming disputes with the CEO needed to be channeled through the chair.
Some chairs are facilitating connections between non-executive directors and other senior executives within the management team.
Some chairs are facilitating connections between non-executive directors and other senior executives within the management team. This idea is much like matchmaking: bringing directors with a certain expertise into direct contact with executives who hold similar responsibilities. Chairs who are doing this do so in close tandem with their CEO, complementing without bypassing the CEO’s leadership while simultaneously easing some of the direct pressure they carry. Take Sarah, chair of a US electronics retailer board. She worked with her CEO to coordinate meetings between a newly hired e-commerce executive and a board member with deep experience in the field. After a few early discussions, these interactions became regular and increased ahead of key events, such as the board’s approval for specific e-commerce initiatives. The chair’s role here was to help build an extended network of information and trust – strengthening stewardship across the broader management team and deepening board understanding without having to route every conversation through the CEO.
Stakeholders can be a broad, diverse group with conflicting interests, and meeting with them can take time and preparation. Effective chairs are finding novel ways to relieve some of this pressure on their CEO (and CFO) by offering to attend meetings on their behalf, especially where a stakeholder is critical of both the management and the board itself. This takes trust and a shared understanding of boundaries. It might mean meeting regularly to figure out how to work in lockstep when dealing with more demanding stakeholders. It could also mean looking at the CEO’s calendar to pinpoint those times when the chair can actively fill in for the CEO. Above all, it means identifying and avoiding any situation where the chair might overstep or intrude on operational or public issues that call for the CEO’s authority. A chair I spoke to said he’d convened an early meeting with his CEO to identify the very specific events and meetings he would be glad to manage, and the protocols surrounding them. Talking to the media, for instance, was completely off the table, and stakeholder meetings were fine provided they touched base beforehand to align on priorities.
But the role of a chair is a privileged one. And with that privilege come great responsibilities – among them the imperative to support and develop the talent that manages the business.
These four behaviors mark an evolution in the relationship between the chair and the CEO. They also require greater effort and involvement than ever before from chairs who are already managing diverse boards and navigating the complex and sometimes conflicting demands and interests of different stakeholders.
But the role of a chair is a privileged one. And with that privilege come great responsibilities – among them the imperative to support and develop the talent that manages the business. Getting this right will not only help moderate the noise and overload that can undermine leadership effectiveness but also help ensure the organization continues to navigate the choppy waters of business today with certainty and clarity.
In an era of constant disruption, oversight is no longer enough. Having served on boards through extreme turbulence, Natacha Theytaz introduces a new framework to integrate strategy with foresight and shield organizations...
Audio available
IMD, Media Trust, and Code For Good Now are building a coalition to shape how AI is developed, deployed, and governed, so it becomes a force for inclusive growth, responsible innovation,...
Sitting on a board can be career-building, socially-elevating, and incredibly interesting, but it isn’t right for everyone. This is a must-have guide for aspiring board members and a hiring template for...
A valuable source of stability and leadership capacity, or a governance model that blurs accountability and boxes in the CEO? Hans-Christoph Hirt and Roger Barker explore the benefits and pitfalls of the...
Audio availableExplore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience