By Kari Granger 

After 15 years coaching CEOs and their teams—from startups to Fortune100s—I’ve seen a predictable pattern: When board meetings approach, everything else grinds to a halt.  

Boards step into their roles with the best of intentions—to uphold accountability, protect stakeholders, and ensure the company’s long-term success. They ask tough questions, challenge assumptions, and demand rigor from leadership. But in their pursuit of oversight, they often create complexity instead of clarity, friction instead of momentum. 

I’ve lost count of how many times an executive has rescheduled a coaching session—not because of a crisis or a major decision needed their attention, but because they were deep in the black hole of board deck prep. For two weeks before every board meeting, executive teams shift from managing the business to managing the board. Depending on the frequency of meetings, this could be eight to 24 weeks a year. 

And what are they optimizing for? Not to expand strategies and insight, but rather to get in, get out, and minimize the damage (confidence intact, random tangents avoided, new “priorities” limited, and power dynamics navigated). In short, the board meeting isn’t seen as a moment to advance strategy—it’s a survival exercise. 

But here’s the real problem: Boards don’t intend for this to happen. Directors aren’t asking executives to carefully filter information or present only what feels safe. In fact, most directors would be shocked to learn just how much is shaped, softened, or omitted before information reaches them. 

This isn’t about deception—it’s about self-preservation. The way most board conversations are structured (or not) unintentionally discourages transparency and slows execution. 

The best boards strike a different balance. They create conditions where truth surfaces early, smart risks are taken, and leadership is empowered to act with confidence. They ensure strategy is real and focused, not just a collection of priorities appeasing different interests. They design governance structures that accelerate execution rather than stall it. 

Because the best boards don’t just govern—they mobilize. 

OVERVIEW 

CEOs and leadership teams often face friction points when working with their boards—challenges that can hinder productivity, decision-making, and overall business impact. This article explores these common tensions and provides strategies to foster more effective boardroom conversations that drive real business outcomes. 

1. Where Intent Misses Impact
   The question isn’t whether your board is engaged. It’s whether your engagement enables executive action—or unintentionally slows it down.
   • Oversight Overload: The Cost of Executive Bandwidth 
   • The “Execution Reality” Gap
   • Everything But Partnership: When Board-Executive Relations Undermine Governance
2. Avoiding Paralysis Pitfalls
   When board-executive relationships fail to strike the right balance, it can lead to dysfunction that weakens accountability and distorted decision-making. 
   • Shift from Oversight to Enablement 
   • Shift from “Approving Budgets to “Allocating Resources for Growth”  
   • Shift from “What’s Safe to Say” to “What Needs to Be Said”  
   • Shift from “Approving Priorities” to “Ensuring Real Strategy and Execution Capability”
3. Mobilize!
   Mobilizing means finding the sweet spot where the board’s insight elevates leadership’s thinking, their accountability strengthens strategic discipline, and their oversight pushes the business forward without slowing it down. 
   • • 2x ROI Challenge  

WHERE INTENT MISSES IMPACT 

The question isn’t whether your board is engaged. It’s whether your engagement enables executive action—or unintentionally slows it down.  

Below are some common pitfalls, while well intentioned, unintentionally creates drag. 

• Oversight Overload: The Cost of Executive Bandwidth 
• The “Execution Reality” Gap
• Everything But Partnership: When Board-Executive Relations Undermine 

1. Governance Oversight Overload: The Cost of Executive Bandwidth 

An EVP of Operations shared her board preparation started two weeks in advance and was often oriented around engineering how to “not say what needed to be said, but of course not say what wasn’t true, but also hint that some things needed to be said in hopes that someone would ask the direct question so she could answer it, all without setting off alarms or throwing her boss or peers under the bus.” This was apparently more complex than her “simple” job of leading the organization’s primary line of business!  

The board’s expectations for polished reports and good news meant that real risks and challenges never surfaced. 

The 2025 Corporate Board Member & Diligent Institute¹ survey validates directors want “less presentation and more discussion” in board meetings—yet most boards still spend too much time reviewing polished decks rather than tackling tough realities.  

“Reviewing financial statements, audit activities, and compliance activities are all part of the work required of board members to keep the company running on the right path. But the most successful boards do far more than this, focusing on more forward-looking, value-creating, strategic issues.” (O’Kelley III and Neal, 2022)² 

The good news is this can sometimes be as simple as shifting the preparation, presentation, and discussion guidelines. Many times, we simply inherited “the way we do it” with an agenda and set of expectations that has been in place for years. Take a risk; ask different questions, eliminate a process, shrink the pages.

Ask yourself: 

• • Are we prioritizing the right discussions—or are executives spending time managing our expectations instead of managing the business? 
  • Are we getting the real story, or just the version that survives excessive filtering? 
  • Are we partners in solving business challenges, or are we unknowingly reinforcing a culture where issues get downplayed until they become crises?

2. The Execution-Reality Gap

A CEO of a state-managed health plan spent over 50% of his time navigating board politics. Why? Because board members were overly concerned with protecting the interests of their congressional districts and affiliated organizations. 

The CEO often lamented his directors didn’t fully understand how the organization functioned—they were debating policies without grasping their executional realities. Only 30% of directors rate their board’s understanding of the company’s long-term strategy as excellent¹. 

Across industries, boards struggle to bridge the gap between strategic direction and executional reality. 

Boards are not responsible for executing strategy—but they are responsible for ensuring the execution manages reputational and regulatory risk, ensures shareholder returns and/or stakeholder impact, manages short- and long-term tradeoffs, and allows for sustainable growth.  

This means:  

• • Setting a clear mandate that gives leadership focus, not conflicting priorities (whether implicit or explicit). 
  • Clarifying and discussing important trade-offs such as short-term financial targets and long-term transformation. 
  • Removing governance friction that slows decision-making, ensuring the company isn’t outpaced by market shifts.  

When boards set goals without clarifying trade-offs, executives get caught in a crossfire—deliver short-term earnings growth AND transform the business? Take bold risks BUT avoid any downside? Invest in long-term innovation WHILE cutting costs? These are more like wish lists than strategic guidelines.

Ask yourself: 

• • Are we aligning on a clear strategic mandate and ensuring we haven’t unintentionally created conflicting objectives?
  • Are we discussing and creating guiding policy on key tensions and tradeoffs that take execution realities into account?
  • What do we need to understand about execution realities to ensure we are not debating policies without grasping their operational impact?

3. Everything But Partnership: When Board-Executive Relationships Undermine Governance

“Pockets of power impact effective decision-making and governance.” (Russell Reynolds)³

A high-functioning board is neither a best friend nor an adversary to the executive team—it is a strategic partner in governance, oversight, and long-term success. When board-executive relationships fail to strike the right balance, it can lead to dysfunction that weakens accountability and distorted decision-making.  

Here are a few common relationship breakdowns that derail effective governance: 

The CEO-Chairman “Buddy-Buddy” Dynamic – I once heard it described as, “an unholy alliance between the chairman and the CEO, doing their own thing.” When the CEO and Chair are too closely aligned, governance turns into protection rather than oversight. Key risks and negative insights never make it to the full board. 

At a Fortune 500 retailer, the CEO and Chair were so tightly aligned that executives knew bad news wouldn’t reach the full board. Leaders saw major inventory issues, staffing problems, and declining customer service metrics, but when concerns were raised, the CEO downplayed the risks to maintain board confidence. By the time financial results reflected these issues, the company was already deep into a multi-year decline—one that could have been addressed much earlier with proper oversight. 

The “Us vs. Them” Divide – The board and executive team operate in silos, engaging only in formal, scheduled sessions. Without real engagement in executional realities, the board’s oversight is based on curated narratives, not business realities. Even worse, some boards see their role as “critical” rather than partnering—they assume an auditive rather than additive function. This creates a defensive leadership culture, where the focus shifts from solving problems to avoiding blame. 

The “Behind-the-Scenes Lobbying” Problem – This happens when some board members undermine collective governance by exerting influence outside of formal meetings. Some board members hold separate, private discussions with the CEO, shaping decisions before they can be debated by the full board. This results in non-optimal decision making as other board members and executives are sidelined. Having private discussions to build relationships and understand execution realities is a good thing, avoiding real debate because you see your agenda won’t pass, is not. 

The “Power Struggle” – The CEO sees the board as meddling in execution, while the board sees the CEO as resisting accountability. Instead of enabling progress, decision making stalls in a battle for control. 

Independent directors of a family-owned company were pushing for AI adoption. Meanwhile, the CEO (also the founder’s son) resisted, not on the grounds of the business case, but rather because he saw this as an “outsider-led initiative that does not understand the business.” This issue turned into a power struggle rather than productive conflict leading to a guiding policy on AI integration. 

Ask yourself: 

• • Do we have any of these relationship dynamics at play that might be reducing our effectiveness as a board?  
    • The CEO-Chairman “Buddy-Buddy” Dynamic 
    • The “Us vs. Them” Divide 
    • The “Behind-the-Scenes Lobbying” Problem 
    • The “Power Struggle” 
  • Do we have a way to surface the tough conversations and ensure productive conflict?  
  • Do all directors have input into key decisions, or do private alliances and informal conversations distort governance? 

AVOIDING PARALYSIS PITFALLS 

Boards don’t need to be less involved—they need to be involved differently. 

“Gold Medal Boards don’t spend any more time on their work than other boards, but they spend their time in vastly different ways.” (O’Kelley III and Neal, 2022)²

• Shift from Oversight to Enablement 
• Shift from “Approving Budgets to “Allocating Resources for Growth”
• Shift from “What’s Safe to Say” to “What Needs to Be Said”  
• Shift from “Approving Priorities” to “Ensuring Real Strategy and Execution Capability”

1. Shift from Oversight to Enablement

Most boards focus on risk mitigation and governance—which is necessary. But the best boards also ask: are we creating the conditions for bold, effective leadership?  

Good boards ensure the company isn’t taking on excessive risk. Great boards ensure they aren’t slowing down necessary risk-taking. They recognize that risk and growth are inherently linked, and rather than acting solely as a brake, they balance their role by also acting as an accelerator when required.  

Shifts needed: 

• • Engage early in strategy formation—ask questions that refine executive thinking rather than react to fully baked plans. 
  • Set clear parameters around risk and establish thresholds for acceptable failure—too often, companies stall because executives are unsure of what level of risk the board will tolerate. 
  • Ensure leadership has real decision-making autonomy—establish clear guardrails that empower executives to act quickly within a defined strategic framework. 
  • Align incentives with long-term value creation, not just short-term stability. 
  • Ensure the leadership team is built for the challenges ahead. Strategy execution requires different capabilities at different stages—sometimes you need execution-focused operators, sometimes strategic thinkers, sometimes transformation agents. 

Boards that enable rather than obstruct don’t just approve strategy—they create the conditions for it to succeed.

2. Shift from “Approving Budgets to “Allocating Resources for Growth”

Most boards review and approve annual budgets, ensuring financial responsibility. But the best boards go further, asking: Are we allocating resources in a way that accelerates strategy and drives growth? 

A consumer goods board pushed leadership to grow market share in emerging markets—but didn’t ensure the marketing budget was reallocated accordingly. As a result, the expansion failed due to lack of consumer awareness. 

Shifts needed: 

• • Question assumptions behind financial allocations—funding should match the strategic priorities and biggest growth opportunities, not just historical spending patterns.  
  • Balance cost discipline with investment in the future—cutting costs without considering second-order effects can starve innovation and weaken competitive positioning. 
  • Encourage scenario-based resource planning—great boards push leadership to think beyond fixed budgets, ensuring flexibility to seize opportunities as they arise or deal with recessionary or other unpredictable events.  
  • Ensure capital allocation supports long-term value creation—not just meeting short-term financial targets. 

Boards that ensure capital is a tool for growth, not just an exercise in control.

3. Shift from “What’s Safe to Say” to “What Needs to Be Said” 

Like the rest of humankind, executives won’t surface hard truths unless they feel safe to do so. Good boards hold leadership accountable. Great boards ensure accountability is built on trust, not fear. They build a culture of truthful conversations where real challenges can be addressed early—even before the data unilaterally supports it. 

“Teams with higher psychological safety are more likely to engage in learning behaviors, such as seeking feedback, sharing information, asking for help, talking about errors, and experimenting.”⁴ This is no different for executives and directors—such behaviors are crucial for effective governance. 

Shifts needed: 

• • Foster psychological safety—leaders should feel they can share risks, failures, and concerns without fear of excessive scrutiny or retribution. Be aware retribution can often come from the CEO or peers for bringing something up that puts egg on someone else’s face. The information is critical, but strategies for surfacing should be addressed.  
  • Encourage open, unfiltered dialogue—move beyond polished presentations to direct, honest discussions about execution challenges. Welcome unpolished signals, investigate patterns, and avoid relying solely on curated data. 
  • Normalize surfacing bad news early—boards should reward transparency, not penalize it. 
  • Create structured but candid executive engagement—regular, informal check-ins with key leaders (beyond just the CEO) to get a clearer picture of operational realities.  
  • Challenge without creating defensiveness—effective boards ask tough questions, but in ways that sharpen executive thinking rather than force self-preservation. 
  • Be willing to be challenged and learn something new—great boards don’t just validate what they already believe; they remain open to insights that may disrupt assumptions and reveal blind spots… allow the unexpected insight. 

Boards that enable rather than obstruct don’t just demand accountability—they create the conditions where truth is valued over optics.

4. Shift from “Approving Priorities” to “Ensuring Real Strategy and Execution Capability”

Too many companies confuse priorities with strategy—they have ambitions, targets, and lists of initiatives, but lack a clear guiding policy and coherent actions.⁵ I can’t count the number of times an organization has shown me their “strategic plan,” only to discover there is no actual strategy—just 19 priorities and 75 projects with no unifying direction. 

Boards must ensure strategy exists—both corporate and competitive—and that it informs decisions, resource allocation, and execution on the ground. A board that sets direction without ensuring execution capacity isn’t governing—it’s guessing, or worse, wishing.  

67% of strategic planning objectives fall short—not because the strategy was flawed, but because it wasn’t designed with execution in mind. Good boards validate strategic intent. Great boards validate execution capability against a sharp strategy. 

Shifts needed: 

• • Ensure strategy exists and is actionable—is there a clear guiding policy rather than just priorities and projects? 
  • Balance fiduciary duties with long-term value creation—are we ensuring sustainable success, not just short-term shareholder returns? 
  • Clarify trade-offs and choices—good strategy requires tough choices and prioritization. 
  • Validate execution capacity before approving strategy—does leadership have the right resources, authority, and structure to act? 

Boards that mobilize strategy don’t just approve plans—they ensure the organization has the clarity, capability, and resources to deliver results. 

MOBILIZE! 

Mobilizing isn’t about more engagement—it’s about better engagement.  

This article took a direct look at the most common friction points I hear from CEOs and leadership teams when working with their boards. My goal was to foster better conversations that drive real business outcomes and eliminate the cycles of performance, posturing, and process that quietly waste time, resources, and shareholder value. 

The best boards find that sweet spot between oversight and partnership—where their insight elevates leadership’s thinking, their accountability strengthens strategic discipline, and their oversight pushes the business forward without slowing it down.

My Challenge to You 

Make the next board meeting deliver a 2x ROI—not just for the shareholders, but for the leadership team’s ability to execute. Push for the kind of conversation that makes the difference! Have it be the meeting directors and executives look forward to because something new was discovered. Have the leaders leave stronger than when they walked in and making better decisions. 

Because the best boards don’t just govern—they mobilize.
 

About the Author: Kari Zeller, founder and CEO of TGN Consulting, is known for unlocking the resting potential of organizations through mobilizing executives and their teams. Her hallmark is uncovering and addressing underlying conditions that impede progress, enabling executives and boards to mobilize their workforce and drive results. She applies her experience to ensure strategy, culture, and leadership are integrated, ensuring coherent initiatives that gain traction. 

To find out how you can partner with Kari and her team to elevate your board interactions, contact us at KZeller@tgn.llc. 

___

NOTES

¹Corporate Board Member. (2025). What directors think – 2025 report. Corporate Board Member. required. https://boardmember.com/what-directors-think-2025-report/.

² O’Kelley, R., III, & Neal, P. J. (2020). lop boards do these 4 things differently. Harvard Business Review. required. https://hbr.org/2020/02/top-boards-do-these-4-things-differently

³Russell Reynolds Associates. (n.d.). Power dynamics on boards. Russell Reynolds Associates. https://www.russellreynolds.com/en/insights/articles/power-dynamics-on-boards

⁴Sadek, Biland. (2024). Psychological safety in the Boardroom. Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, Vol3 (1). https://doi.org/10.47742/jhssr.v3n1p1

⁵As described in Rumelt, R. P. (2011). Good strategy, bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. Crown Business.