How to handle the three types of difficult directors on the board?

This happens in every boardroom. Marathon meetings drag on for hours, discussions on key strategic issues have not even started, yet a certain director keeps obsessing over a trivial matter that everyone else deems irrelevant. As the conversation drags on, this director raises objections to every proposed idea. Progress grinds to a halt, priorities become blurred, energy is exhausted, and frustration builds up. The sound governance that a board of directors is supposed to deliver becomes extraordinarily difficult.

We recently completed a multi-year research project exploring how boards of directors function. We interviewed more than 120 board chairs and directors from companies ranging in headcount from roughly 1,200 to over 400,000, and in revenue from around $300 million to over $1 trillion. These companies are based in Australia, Europe and the United States, spanning a wide range of industries including services, manufacturing, engineering and technology. The interviews yielded a wealth of candid feedback, revealing how a single director can bring an otherwise high-performing board to a near standstill. Since boards typically operate behind closed doors, these issues are rarely discussed publicly — in fact, many directors asked for confidentiality before speaking to us about them. But such problems are far from uncommon, and resolving them often requires intentional intervention.

Drawing on our research, this article outlines the defining traits of the most common types of difficult directors. We then present a practical framework designed to help board chairs and directors identify early warning signs, correct ineffective behaviors, and restore a healthy boardroom culture. Finally, we explore how boards can respond when the chair themselves becomes the root of the problem, to preserve operational processes and maintain the ability to make sound decisions.

Types of Difficult Directors

We have found that difficult board members fall into three main categories: the Passenger (who stays silent and hopes to go unnoticed), the Dominator (who takes control of every discussion), and the Off-Track Expert (who fixates excessively on minor details). While their behavioral patterns differ, they all lead to the same problems: slow decision-making, strained relationships, and eroded trust. All three types prevent the board from upholding its true responsibilities — overseeing and guiding management, and setting the long-term direction for the enterprise. We analyze each type briefly below.

The Passenger. This type of director is usually the quietest person in the room. At first, they may seem polite, thoughtful, and respectful of others' views. But their silence and passivity often reflect a reluctance to engage in debates with others, even within their own areas of expertise — despite the fact that they were appointed to the board precisely for the professional experience they could contribute to these very discussions.

At the board of a European company we have worked with, one member who was hired for his deep industry knowledge rarely spoke up during strategic discussions related to his area of specialization. Reluctant to challenge a strong CEO, he only offered his opinions when the chair explicitly invited him to speak. In this scenario, it was hard to tell whether the director was thinking quietly or simply disengaged. But ultimately that did not matter, because his voice was never heard. "You certainly don't want to punish introverts," one interviewed director noted, "but silence beyond a certain point becomes a burden."

Directors often become passive when their areas of expertise are highly specialized. This is increasingly common today, given the growing number of experts in fields such as AI, cybersecurity and sustainability. It is not surprising that these directors feel uncomfortable speaking outside their areas of specialization unless explicitly invited to do so. An effective board relies on active intellectual curiosity and the willingness of everyone to raise questions, test assumptions, and deepen collective understanding. Once this willingness fades, the board's collective judgment suffers. By refusing to participate, the Passenger can make debates lifeless, lower expectations of the board's capabilities, and send a signal to management that the board's work is merely perfunctory, rather than a source of strategic strength. (Note that when a director is the only person on the board from a specific demographic background, their reluctance to speak up may reflect structural issues such as power norms or group dynamics, rather than personal passivity. Since this dynamic stems from the director's surrounding environment rather than individual behavior, it does not fall under the patterns described in this article.)

The Dominator. This type of director takes over the entire room, but their contributions are entirely unconstructive. Confident and talkative, they interrupt and interject in every discussion, treating the meeting table as a platform to promote their personal views rather than facilitate collective judgment. The genuine enthusiasm or professional background they demonstrate at the outset eventually turns into a source of trouble. Dominators tend to lecture others, dismiss their points of view, or steer the conversation toward topics they care about and their preferred solutions. Whether intentionally or not, they cause quieter members to withdraw further, eroding the diverse perspectives that make a board effective.

At the board of a US manufacturing company, a recently retired former CEO of a Fortune Global 500 company exhibited this exact pattern. In meeting after meeting, he delivered long monologues about how he would run the company, diving deep into operational details and barely leaving any room for other directors to speak. When others tried to voice their opinions, he would often wave them off or dismiss them outright. Over time, the incumbent CEO grew frustrated enough to raise the issue with the board chair, feeling constantly second-guessed and unable to hold candid, productive conversations.

Dominators are usually experienced, successful leaders who simply have not adapted to the collective nature of board work. They often fit the "alpha personality" profile, accustomed to driving results but less skilled at listening, preferring to make decisions rather than deliberate thoughtfully. As one board chair told us: "Many of these people used to lead entire companies. When they join a board, the power dynamic reverses: they give advice, but they no longer make the final call. Not everyone can adapt to that shift easily."

Left unaddressed, Dominators can warp the entire board's discussion culture. Some directors, to avoid conflict, either refrain from speaking their minds or rush through agenda items; meanwhile, the chair shifts into a defensive mode, intervening in meetings to limit discussion rather than deepen it.

The Off-Track Expert. This type of director joins the board with a wealth of experience. They want to make meaningful contributions, but their overly narrow focus inadvertently pulls the board away from its highest-priority matters. Instead of moving discussions forward, they get them bogged down in technical details or theoretical tangents, slowing progress and distracting the group from core priorities. The points they raise are valid, but they do not necessarily align with the board's core purpose — meaning their valuable expertise becomes a source of friction rather than insight.

For example, a legal expert on the board of a European manufacturing company was extremely diligent and always thoroughly prepared. But no matter what topic was under discussion, he would repeatedly steer the conversation back to legal risks. The board, which needed to pursue strategic balance, ended up stuck in lengthy debates about potential legal liabilities. Consider another case: a human resources expert on the board of a US services company regularly contacted the firm's CHRO (Chief Human Resources Officer) between meetings to offer guidance on personnel decisions. This practice blurred governance boundaries and undermined executive autonomy.

For the Off-Track Expert, the core issue is misplaced focus. Well-intentioned as they are, they often force the board to spend disproportionate time dwelling on short-term operational details, reducing the time that should be dedicated to long-term priorities such as strategy, market positioning, value creation and succession planning.

From Awareness to Action

Of course, boards start guarding against these issues long before directors formally take office. Multiple board chairs told us that assessing a candidate's behavioral fit is very challenging: board role interviews are short, candidates are typically high achievers, existing board members often know them personally, and almost anyone can appear calm and collected for the duration of a single meeting. However, experienced chairs use techniques to see past surface impressions. Peter Voser, chair of the global technology firm ABB, notes that he conducts multiple rounds of interviews with the same candidate, rephrasing the same questions to test the consistency of their answers. A candidate might maintain a perfect facade in one meeting, but cannot keep it up across multiple interactions. "You can pretend once," he says, "but you cannot pretend multiple times."

Other chairs arrange for several board members to interview candidates separately, then compare notes to see if they reach a consensus on the candidate's listening skills, humility and openness. But leaders emphasize that no screening process is foolproof, and problematic behaviors often only emerge through actual board interactions. That is why boards must pay close attention to early signs of troublesome conduct.

To diagnose difficult director behaviors, the first step is rigorous, structured observation. Effective boards typically identify behavioral patterns and assess them across three simple, powerful dimensions: engagement (whether the director is well-prepared, demonstrates curiosity, and actively contributes to discussions rather than remaining disengaged); interaction (whether they listen, make relevant constructive additions, and raise thoughtful challenges, or go off-topic, interrupt others, or withdraw into silence); and impact (whether their participation improves the quality of debate, enhances collective judgment, and helps the board make sound decisions, or slows progress and distracts from key priorities). The goal of this assessment is not to judge individual personalities, but to clearly interpret behaviors, distinguish occasional missteps from long-term traits, and intervene early before ineffective habits start shaping the board's culture.

Identifying problematic behaviors is only the starting point. The response that follows will determine whether the board returns to balance or descends into chaos. To address difficult directors, the board must take coordinated action as outlined below.

Clarify expectations. For a board to perform at its best, it should explicitly define behavioral expectations rather than taking them for granted. Directors often join boards with strong personal habits and beliefs shaped by their careers across different industries and cultures. Senior directors in particular are often used to doing things their own way. As a result, they frequently hold vastly different views on how discussions should unfold, how constructive challenges should be raised, and what counts as "sufficient preparation". Directors need a shared framework to govern conversations, as well as clear, mutually agreed behavioral standards.

Debbie Hewitt offers a strong example. As chair of The Football Association, the governing body of football in England, and a former senior chair at Visa Europe and BGL Group, Hewitt always takes time to discuss her expectations with directors, covering pre-meeting preparation, meeting participation, openness to diverse perspectives, accountability for failures, and director professional development. Setting this overall tone is especially important for boards facing public scrutiny and cultural transformation.

Many of the more effective boards we studied adopt similar approaches, even if sometimes less explicitly. They embed behavioral norms into their board charters, use onboarding sessions to discuss "how the board should operate", and revisit these norms during regular governance or strategy meetings. Some boards go a step further by formalizing small but meaningful rules, such as avoiding side conversations, taking turns to speak, asking clarifying questions before offering opinions, or raising only one strategic question per agenda item. These practices are not overly complex, but they ensure meetings proceed on the basis of shared consensus, and send a strong signal to management that the board takes its duties seriously and operates with clear purpose.

Give feedback early and directly. If problematic behaviors are left unaddressed, they almost always worsen over time. Early intervention is key, so it is critical to spot warning signs before a behavioral pattern becomes embedded in the board's culture.

However, giving feedback is one of the most delicate aspects of board leadership. Clear, direct feedback rooted in observable behaviors, rather than subjective personal judgment, helps directors adjust their conduct without feeling attacked.

The first conversation should usually take place in private. Before offering guidance, the board chair can open with questions such as: "Did you notice the tense atmosphere during that discussion?" or "How do you think the meeting flowed and paced?" This approach encourages reflection rather than triggering defensiveness. If the behavior does not improve, the conversation should be expanded to include the lead independent director; if necessary, the full board can be brought in. However, escalating the conversation to the full board requires exceptional communication skills and preparation, otherwise the difficult board member could be publicly humiliated. This step must never be taken impulsively.

At well-governed companies including Target, Novartis and ABB, feedback has been integrated into the regular rhythm of board work. Receiving feedback is simply part of the corporate culture, and is not seen as a disciplinary measure. One global consumer goods company sets aside 5 minutes after every executive session to reflect on the quality of discussions: what worked well? What slowed progress? Whose voices went unheard? Another company's board conducts annual peer-to-peer feedback, consisting of two short questions: What should this director keep doing? What changes should they make? Asking these simple questions on a regular basis reduces the perceived threat of feedback and fosters candid dialogue.

We also encountered cases where external coaching delivered transformative results. At a Nordic industrial company, a director who regularly dominated discussions received coaching, and the coach helped him understand how others perceived his contributions. Within a few months, his colleagues noticed a marked difference: the director spoke less often, but his comments carried greater weight, and the overall atmosphere of board meetings improved significantly.

All in all, feedback delivers maximum value when it is delivered early, respectfully, and with clear, positive intent. This approach improves board performance, avoids creating the impression of personal punishment, and encourages directors to adjust their behavior before it causes disruptive harm.

Leverage structural and procedural tools. Not all difficult behaviors stem from personality. At many of the boards we studied, structural issues such as unclear committee responsibilities, poorly ordered agendas, or insufficient time allocated for strategic planning triggered or amplified behavioral challenges. Behavioral problems can also arise from procedural factors — the regular meeting conventions that shape how directors interact, such as speaking order, time management, and how discussions are opened, closed, or redirected.

When structural and procedural elements are poorly designed, even well-intentioned directors can fall into ineffective patterns. When these elements are thoughtfully crafted, they can guide the board to hold balanced, constructive, strategic conversations.

As such, the board chair must establish appropriate structures and processes to steer behaviors in the right direction. When designing the committee structure and assigning responsibilities, ABB board chair Peter Voser set a clear goal: to ensure all board members can make strong contributions, and that every voice is heard. For example, the board's Governance and Nominating Committee oversees corporate social responsibility (including health, safety, environment and sustainability), even though full accountability for ABB's sustainability strategy rests with the entire board. Establishing dedicated committees allows Voser to guide directors to share their expertise in the appropriate discussion forum, preventing individual directors from dictating the full board's agenda. Voser has also publicly stated that he avoids letting overly active directors dominate discussions, to uphold ABB's commitment to balanced, transparent deliberation. This arrangement creates natural opportunities for quieter members to speak up, and prevents a small number of strong-willed directors from controlling conversations. In addition, Voser designed processes requiring all decisions to be made during formal board meetings, with no decisions deferred or settled informally outside the boardroom, which helps maintain transparency and inclusivity in discussions.

Boards can use a range of procedural tools to encourage constructive conduct, such as paying attention to speaking order and intentionally rotating who initiates each discussion. They can use "timeboxing", assigning clear time slots to different directors to keep discussions focused and ensure equal participation. They can set up a "parking lot" for agenda items, for example by noting off-topic ideas on a whiteboard to acknowledge them for later follow-up without derailing the current meeting. By establishing structured turn-taking mechanisms, every director gets the chance to speak, especially when major strategic matters are under consideration. Boards can distribute pre-reading materials with prompts to encourage members to prepare using targeted questions. They can use AI to track and analyze who speaks during meetings, and suggest adjustments. They can even bring in external facilitators, which can help reshape interaction patterns between board members, especially during strategic retreats or periods of heightened tension.

Escalate when necessary. If a director persists in disruptive behavior after multiple interventions, escalation becomes a necessary step for good governance, not a discretionary choice. This process must be clear and fair. The Nominating and Governance Committee should oversee the process, working closely with the board chair and lead independent director. The chair should first document the relevant issues and feedback conversations; if the problem persists, the Nominating and Governance Committee should deliver formal feedback, which must include clear performance expectations, an improvement timeline, and a follow-up plan. In some cases, the board can restructure committees to reduce friction, or use external evaluations to encourage the director to voluntarily step down. But this latter option is not always feasible. As one board chair told us: "Board members are often at the end of their careers. If you ask them to leave the board, they may never get another board position, so they may cling to their seat very tightly." If none of the above steps work, it is time to consider the worst-case option: removing the director. This is never a step to be taken lightly.

Every director is appointed for a specific reason, but the goal of addressing problematic behavior is not punishment, but restoration — realigning each director with the board's shared collective goals. When boards act early and fairly, they not only prevent dysfunction, but also strengthen trust, improve decision quality, and set a highly desirable example of accountability for the entire organization.

Tailor Strategies to Specific Director Types

Every practice outlined above can be adjusted to target the specific type of difficult director involved.

The Passenger usually responds most positively to clear expectations and structured opportunities to contribute. Great board chairs understand that to get these directors to speak up, it is better to create conditions where they feel comfortable contributing than to pressure them to talk. To that end, the chair can foster an inclusive atmosphere before the meeting even starts: flag agenda items related to the director's area of expertise in advance, ask questions that play to their strengths, or follow up with them privately to identify what is holding them back from participating. Through these small interventions, silence often turns into valuable insight once the Passenger feels their input is both expected and valued. Over time, consistent encouragement will build an inclusive culture where even the most reserved directors can participate naturally and confidently.

For the Dominator, clear boundaries and consistent reinforcement of meeting norms are required. Great chairs understand that curbing dominating behavior is not