This product has already been purchased.
- Board performance is often undermined not by strategy, but by predictable director behaviours that derail discussion and decision making.
- These patterns are familiar in most boardrooms and require different interventions from the chair.
- This article outlines practical strategies and targeted questions to help boards stay focused, balanced and effective.
One difficult director can derail a board’s focus, shifting attention from governance to managing behaviour. These patterns are familiar and surface in boardrooms time and again. The real challenge is not just identifying them but responding quickly and effectively.
It only takes one difficult director to throw a board off course. What should be a focused discussion on governance and strategy can quickly unravel into managing personalities and disruptive behaviour.
These behaviours tend to appear in various, often familiar personality types, which can range from the Dominator and the Naysayer to the Ghost and the Alarmist – each requiring a different response from the chair.
Governance advisors Peter Turnbull AM FAICD and Trent Bartlett FAICD, along with Bruce Cowley AM FAICD, chair of the Queensland Trust for Nature, share practical strategies to keep boards on track. Steven Bowman FAICD, Managing Director of Conscious Governance, adds targeted questions chairs can use to refocus debate and draw out more constructive contributions.
1. The Dominator – takes up too much airtime
When there’s a dominator in the room, Bartlett asks the board for permission to follow a simple rule: No director speaks twice until everyone has spoken once.
“It sounds mechanical, but it forces airtime to be more evenly distributed,” he says.
Cowley privately agrees with a dominator that, when they’ve had enough airtime, he will gesture with a wind-up or other hand signal.
“This can usually be done with good humour so that little further intervention is required,” he says.
Bowman says ask the director:
What is the single most important insight you want the board to take from your point?
2. The perpetual Naysayer – blocks progress
“In my experience, a naysayer whose boardroom identity is built on ‘black hat’ caution often can’t articulate the upside at all,” says Turnbull.
“Asked what would need to be true to gain their support, a director with genuine risk instincts can usually do it – and the proposal gets sharper for the exercise. If a director responds with a shrug, the behaviour is the problem.”
Bowman says ask the director:
Can you outline one or two workable alternatives rather than just the risks?
3. The Ghost – attends but contributes nothing
A director who takes a seat at the table owes the board an opinion.
“Some ghosts are disengaged – papers unread, no skin in the game, checked out,” says Bartlett.
“If the behaviour doesn’t shift after a private conversation, this becomes a renewal issue. Others may be engaged but unwilling to commit to a view in the room – a different problem, and often one of confidence. An engaged but silent ghost is usually coachable and worth the effort.”
Bowman says ask the director:
Given your experience, what do you see as the key issue here?
4. The Hobbyist – pushes their pet topic
In the mining sector, Turnbull has seen directors with a pet development.
“They want this to be at the top of the list, regardless of commercial viability,” he says. “It should have a use-by date but, if it continues, the chair – with the support of the board – needs to delve into the detail of the director’s position to demonstrate that this is not the best option for shareholders.”
Bowman says ask the director:
What is the strategic issue behind this and how does it relate to today’s agenda item?
5. The CEO’s Shadow – inappropriately defends management
Turnbull has seen CEO shadows in family companies.
“Directors are sometimes picked by the dominant shareholder in return for their support, creating a less-than-independent board,” he says.
A director who has served alongside the same CEO for a long time, or sees the CEO socially, can also lose the distance from the role that is required.
“Directors who have stopped exercising independent judgement are not fulfilling their key role,” says Bartlett. “I schedule time without management at every meeting because a ‘shadow’ will often behave differently when the CEO isn’t across the table.”
Bowman says ask the director:
If we step back from management’s framing, what alternative perspectives should we test?
6. The Historian – constantly references “how we used to do it”
“Some historians share institutional memories that can be genuinely valuable,” says Bartlett. “Others deploy the past to close a decision down. In that case, my response is: ‘Thanks, that’s useful context, so what should we do now?’”
Bowman says ask the director
What has changed that might lead us to a different conclusion this time?
7. The Technician – obsessed with detail, veers into management’s lane
“This trait can be quite destructive because the director often focuses on details that aren’t as important as they think,” says Turnbull. “It upsets the flow of the meeting by directing attention away from what really matters.”
Some people simply can’t get to grips with the line between the board and management.
“In that case, the director may not be right for the board,” says Turnbull.
Bowman says ask the director
Where should we draw the line between governance oversight and operational detail here?
8. The Politician – prioritises alliances over substance
“A director who rings around to count numbers and lock in votes before a paper has been discussed is undermining necessary debate,” says Bartlett.
If he sees it happening, he raises the matter privately. If it continues, he names it in the room.
“Letting it go teaches every other director that alliances matter more than robust challenge and debate,” he says.
Bowman says ask the director
What assumptions are we making that we have not yet tested openly as a board?
9. The Alarmist – overreacts, catastrophises
“Risk vigilance is a genuine duty, but escalation without reasoned calibration isn’t helpful,” says Bartlett. “When the board hears that everything is urgent, directors lose their ability to recognise genuine urgency.”
Bowman says ask the director:
What evidence do we have about the likelihood of that scenario?
'It's a melting pot'
“The boardroom is a melting pot for human behaviour,” concludes Turnbull.
“A skilled chair understands, and can manage, a wide range of individual and collective dynamics.”
Latest news
Already a member?
Login to view this content