A recent educational series I attended called “Leading Through Difficult Board Dynamics” ended up more like a therapy than a training session. My most important take-away was “it’s bad out there” and it doesn’t need to be.
First, it’s hard to recruit board members. Canadian data on nonprofit board governance reports the average board has 12.7 directors but 31% of agencies struggle to fill those seat and 38% of prospects decline. * American research lists the main challenges as faint-hearted chairship or its opposite -- chair dominance, factionalism, over-stepping into operations, poor conflict-resolution skill, and dysfunctional even toxic behaviours that go unmanaged. **
Regrettably, it is this dysfunction that helps me carve out a living. Group dynamics fascinate me. And over the past several years, I have consulted on all of the challenges above. And if any of the above describe your board, I offer you three levels of fixes.
Prevention
Upfront contracting with new and prospective board members takes place during board recruitment and orientation. These early discussions set expectations and depersonalize tension when someone deviates from what was promised in the upfront contract. The best foundation for success and prevention of what ails is comprehensive board orientation with three components.
- My first favourite component – beyond the vision, mission and bylaws – is the three core board duties of care, loyalty and obedience. These should not be presented generically but given context: what these mean for a nonprofit, a
corporate or a union board. - My next favourite component is defining the kind of board that directors are joining : is it a working or a governance board? And what does a working board look like? Where’s the line between governance and operations? I prefer to develop a quiz for this one with real examples which engage and challenge new board members.
- From the beginning of board outreach, it’s important to clarify the roles of the full board, the executive, committees of the board and most importantly, the role and responsibilities of the Executive Director and the Board Chair. The ED/Board Chair relationship is like a two-person canoe where each party is reading the water and reading each other’s stroke to stay in sync and maintain momentum. I have seen one canoe sink when an entire board pulled the plug and resigned, but more often I have seen a canoe drift when both paddlers believe they own the map. An informal “contract of mutual expectations” and regular check-ins helps maintain synchronicity and keeps the organization moving forward.
Education
There are great options for studying or becoming certified as a director. But the real education comes from “soft skills training”. Firstly, chairship can make or break a board. I recently saw three board members resign because a chair was disengaged and they felt the board had lost direction and momentum. I recently wrote a blog about the eight traits of an effective chair.
The adjective “bullying” is used too cavalierly, and I encourage you to dissect the difference between bullying or intimidation and acceptable, healthy dissent. I’ve learned with any change, some level of resistance is inevitable. But consider resistance not as an obstacle but as data. Resistance is often founded in fear. So, what are people fearful of? Don’t avoid conflict. Dive in with a curious, investigative mind. What is the other person’s context? Where are they coming from?
I also like to include a refresher on the “Ladder of Inference” (a concept developed by Chris Argyris and popularized by Peter Senge) which illustrates how we jump from raw facts to action almost instantly, without noticing the rungs of what’s really going on in between. Board members who operate on assumptions typically lose trust in the board’s leadership and chairs are left to manage personalities instead of strategies. Most board tension doesn’t come from bad intent. It comes from good people climbing the ladder too fast — and acting on assumptions they never checked. High functioning boards don’t avoid conflict, but they can slow it down by asking:
1. What are we assuming here?
2. What else could be true?
3. What are we reacting to: facts or feelings?
Intervention
Without effective recruitment, orientation and education, I am sometimes called in to fix a dysfunctional board through an intervention. And I take my own advice: never jump up the “ladder of inference” about who are the good guys and the bad guys. It’s all about data. So, I interview every Board member, the Executive Director and any relevant staff. My key question is to learn “What have you seen or heard that leads you to believe that?”
With all data collected, sometimes a difficult conversation must be held. The “SBI” approach has always served me well: describe the Situation, describe the observable Behaviours, describe the Impact on me and others.
The SBI model is an approach for conversations with board members, the ED, staff members or even the Board Chair. And if the challenge is the relationship between two people – the ED and the Board Chair – it is critically important to create and install a process of communication. When there is no relationship, let process nurture the link between the two.
Conclusion
A canoe left to drift will always find the current's course, not its own, while prevention, education, and intervention can ensure a Board Chair, the overall Board and an Executive Director choose and set the direction together. We all believe in the mission. And we all want our canoe to land on the mission we want to fulfill.
If you are a board chair, director, or ED looking to improve board effectiveness, start a conversation. Reach out to Judy to discuss the leadership challenges your board is facing and how prevention, education or intervention can make a meaningful difference.
* Canadian Society of Association Executives and Portage Group's Canadian Association Census.
** Chair dominance and weak-chair dynamics: IMD, Three Types of Toxic Board Culture, 2026; Aspen Leadership Group, 2025. Factionalism: John Littleford & Associates, The Boards You Should Not Emulate. Board dysfunction prevalence: Alex Counts, cited in ConsultClarity, 13 Warning Signs Your Board of Directors Is Dysfunctional, 2026.
