Managing Difficult Directors

It happens in every boardroom. Hours into a marathon meeting, the conversation on the critical strategy topics has not yet started, and that one director won’t stop circling around a minor issue no one else finds relevant. As discussions continue, the same director pushes back on every idea. Momentum stalls, focus blurs, energy dissipates, and frustration mounts. Good governance becomes harder than it needs to be.

The article highlights the characteristics of the most common types of difficult board members. Followed by an outline of a practical framework to help chairs and directors spot early-warning signs, redirect unproductive behaviors, and restore a healthy board dynamic. Finally, it offers what happens when the chair is the problem and describes how the board can respond to protect its processes and its ability to make sound decisions.

Difficult Types.  Three main types of difficult board members: passive passengers (who stay silent and hope to go unnoticed), dominators (who take control of every discussion), and misguided experts (who focus too much on details). Although they behave differently, they create the same issues: Decisions slow, dynamics are strained, and trust erodes. All three types can make it hard for boards to stay anchored on their true mandates: serving as stewards for management and guiding companies’ long-term direction.

From Awareness to Action.  Diagnosing difficult behavior in directors begins with disciplined observation. Effective boards look for patterns, and they assess them through three simple but powerful lenses: engagement (Do directors come prepared, show curiosity, and lean into the conversation rather than hovering at its edges?), interaction (Do they listen, build, and challenge constructively, or do they derail, interrupt, or retreat into silence?), and impact (Does their participation strengthen debate, sharpen judgment, and help the board reach sound decisions, or does it slow progress and dilute focus?). The aim is not to police personalities but to read behaviors clearly, distinguish the occasional misstep from a persistent trait, and intervene early—long before unproductive habits begin to shape the culture of the boardroom.

Recognizing difficult behaviors is the starting point. What happens next determines whether a board regains its balance or slides into disarray. To deal with difficult directors, boards need to collaborate on the following actions:  Set clear expectations.  Give feedback early and directly.  Use structural and procedural levers.  And escalate when necessary.

Adjustments by Type.  Each of the actions described can and should be adapted to the specific type of difficult director.  Passive passengers often respond best to clear expectations and structured opportunities to contribute.  Dominators, for their part, require firm boundaries and consistent enforcement of meeting norms.  Finally, misguided experts benefit from targeted feedback and agendas that channel their expertise toward the right strategic priorities.  

A Balancing Act.  A well-functioning board can often regulate itself, but if emotions start to rise, the chair obviously has a crucial role to play. That role is not to take over the conversation or smooth over conflict. Instead, the chair should work to maintain a disciplined equilibrium in a way that allows disagreement without division, participation without chaos, and expertise without overreach.  This work starts with a simple truth: Chairs are more like conductors than referees. They know that most directors have special talents and want to contribute. They also recognize that directors need to be guided to act in alignment with the board’s collective purpose. Great chairs set the rhythm of discussion, anticipate problems and difficulties, smooth out frictions, and recalibrate tone in ways that maintain alignment. Doing so allows them to handle even the most difficult directors without humiliating them or escalating tensions.  Although chairs play a central role in guiding dynamics, they can’t carry the burden of culture alone.  Boards work best when every director pays attention to how the group functions: who speaks, who hesitates, when conversations drift, when the room needs a reset. 

But what happens when the very person tasked with setting the tone and maintaining alignment—the chair—becomes a problem?   Given the chair’s elevated position, addressing this dynamic is uniquely difficult. No single director can intervene effectively, and even collectively the other members of the board don’t have many options available for intervening. The best course of action is for senior directors or committee chairs to engage the chair with a private, candid conversation that frames the issue around the board’s effectiveness rather than the chair’s personality. Early dialogue often helps, but if that doesn’t lead to change, the board may need to coordinate a more structured process through the nomination or governance committee, ensuring that any action is handled with fairness, transparency, and a clear sense of fiduciary duty.  Should the chair resist feedback or continue to undermine trust, the board may need to consider a leadership change.

show less