Blog

After fourteen years as CEO of a publicly traded company, I can tell you this: running the business was usually the easy part. Managing the board its personalities, agendas, fears, and unpredictable dynamics was a real job. No matter how confident you are as a first-time public CEO, nothing in your previous experience fully prepares you for what happens once you start dealing with the board bureaucracy.

From the outside, a board of directors looks like a group of seasoned professionals offering wisdom and governance. Inside the room, the reality is far more complex: shifting alliances, selective engagement, risk aversion, and often a surprising lack of preparation.

The Independent Board Paradox

On paper, independent directors exist to protect shareholders. In practice, many are focused on protecting themselves from liability, reputational harm, or shareholder lawsuits. Their decisions often prioritize self-preservation over strategic action.

A high-functioning board needs the right mix:insiders who bring ambition, operational urgency, and an ownership mindset, balanced by outsiders who bring governance and discipline. But when the independent side becomes too dominant, the company loses balance. Vision turns to caution, and execution speed slows to a crawl.

As CEO, you may be driving the company into its next chapter, but the board’s default instinct is often to ensure that nothing goes wrong on their watch. This instinct can hinder acquisitions, stall capital raises, and delay strategic decisions that require courage.

Short Attention Spans and Long Opinions

After attending more than a hundred board meetings, one pattern never changed: attention spans are short. Many directors juggle multiple boards, advisory roles, or investments. They are smart, but not always deeply informed.

You can tell who  reviewed the board materials on the flight over— or even during the meeting itself—just by the type of questions they ask.

At one point, I became so frustrated with the lack of focus that I banned laptops and phones from our meetings. It didn’t fix everything, but it forced the board to listen and stay present.

Keep in mind that while board members often excel in governance and finance, they don’t necessarily understand the nuances of your company’s industry. 

The Alpha Director Effect

In nearly every board, there are one or two “alpha directors.” These are the former CEOs, finance veterans, or strong personalities who influence the tone of the meeting. Other directors look to them before voicing their own opinions.

Ben Horowitz said it best: A board is not a democracy; it is a collection of individuals with unequal influence.

Knowing who truly drives decisions and learning to work with them is critical. An alpha director can be your strongest ally or your biggest obstacle.

The hardest board dynamic is when you have two or more alpha directors who don’t agree on anything. Each one thinks they know better, and suddenly you’re spending more time managing their egos than running the company. You end up playing the diplomat, trying to keep the peace while keeping the board focused. But when that tension becomes a permanent feature, the only real solution is to usher one of them off the board in an elegant, respectful way. 

When Power Shifts from Founders to the Board

Eventually, a founder’s control erodes through subsequent secondaries, stock options, and warrant issuance. As that control diminishes, more emphasis should be placed on the inner workings and relationships of the board.

When the balance shifts too far from the founders, strategic agility disappears. Risk taking fades, the company becomes defensive, and managers become confused about who leads. Decisions stall for weeks.

I was lucky to have a board that didn’t attempt to run or meddle in operations, but I have seen other boards try to second-guess management on the day-to-day matters instead of focusing on strategy.

Managing the Ecosystem of Lawyers, Auditors, and Advisors

Public company CEOs don’t just manage boards. They manage the entire ecosystem around them, including auditors, accounting firms, internal and external counsel, bankers, and consultants.

Each group has opinions. Each group is well paid. Each group is primarily focused on dispensing advice at the lowest personal risk possible. Since they have no skin in the game, their default guidance is always to choose the safest path, not necessarily the best one for the company.

The Hidden Fear of Shareholder Lawsuits

One of the most powerful forces shaping board behavior is the fear of litigation. A missed quarter, a failed acquisition, or an accounting restatement can trigger a class action lawsuit. And once it does, things change.

Once, we had to restate a quarter because of an auditor’s bad determination on warrant valuation. The share price dived, and the behavior of the board shifted overnight. Every decision became filtered through the question: Are we going to get sued?

The system around D&O (Directors and Officers insurance) is driven by plaintiff firms, defense firms, and insurance carriers. Each benefits financially regardless of the impact on companies or shareholders.

In a meeting with AIG, our insurance carrier, we argued that the lawsuit was baseless and should be fought. The AIG representative, who flew in from NY, admitted that even if we could win, they would not fight. Why? Because winning could set a precedent that would reduce the value of their insurance products. 

At that moment, it clicked: the system was rigged at the expense of shareholders. 

The good news is that reforms are being discussed at the SEC that could help boards focus more on strategy and less on legal insulation.

Activist Investors

Even the rumor of an activist investor entering the stock changes board psychology. Directors move to a defensive posture. This creates hypersensitivity to guidance, more conservative capital allocation, increased focus on short term metrics, and greater scrutiny of management decisions. Managing activism is a job of its own and consumes significant leadership time.

Compensation Committee Politics

Compensation committees are more political than most CEOs realize. These committees hire consultants, benchmark pay packages, evaluate succession, and negotiate terms. The relationship with the compensation chair is often just as important as the relationship with the entire board.

The Board Packet Problem

Board packets are often excessively long—sometimes reaching more than one hundred pages. Created to please auditors and lawyers, they overwhelm directors. The result is that materials are skimmed, important items are lost, and meetings shift toward minutia. 

Great CEOs and CFOs learn to simplify. Create a bullet-point summary with a clear agenda and focus.

Building Trust and Managing Expectations

Effective CEOs understand that success depends on trust, not control. The board must feel informed and also trusted as a key ally. As a CEO, you need to invest in one-on-one communication and constantly seek advice from the board. It makes the decision-making process easier because the decisions become shared rather than forced.

Psychology is key

Board dynamics will always be complex because boards are composed of people with different incentives, egos, and perspectives. The best CEOs have a clear vision, are firm yet flexible, strategic yet practical, and avoid emotional confrontations. 

The mark of a great CEO is not only operational success but also the ability to skillfully manage the people who believe they manage you.