When egos rule the boardroom: the hidden cost to governance

AT THE heart of good governance is balance. The governance triad of board, chair and CEO alignment has already been identified as a theme critical to organisational success. This means that the boardroom must be a place of stewardship where directors collectively safeguard the organisation's purpose, resources and long-term value.

- NOOBANI MZIZI

Yet too often, it becomes an arena where egos clash, alliances form and personal ambitions overshadow fiduciary responsibilities. When this happens, governance suffers. The organisation's energy is diverted from strategy and oversight to power struggles and personality contests.

This challenge is not new, but it is growing more pronounced in an era where boards face unprecedented scrutiny and complexity.

Directors are expected to manage global risks, guide digital transformation and uphold corporate citizenship, yet the effectiveness of these responsibilities is undermined when self-interest dominates the agenda. Such dynamics in the boardroom distort priorities, weaken accountability and erode trust among stakeholders.

These clashing egos disrupt the essential balance of governance. When chairs seek to dominate rather than facilitate, when CEOs treat the board as an obstacle, and when directors jockey for personal influence, the system of checks and balances becomes a contest for control, with consequences that are severe, multifaceted and costly.

Decision-making slows as individuals chase recognition or resist compromise. Strategic opportunities are lost because consensus cannot be reached. Groupthink emerges when directors fear challenging dominant personalities, while others disengage to avoid conflict.

Most damaging, the board loses legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders who expect collective wisdom but instead see dysfunction.

This dysfunction exposes organisations to tangible risks, including financial losses, reputational damage, increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legal consequences as oversight weakens and accountability fades.

Furthermore, it stands in direct opposition to established governance standards. King IV places ethical and effective leadership at its foundation, emphasising that governing bodies must act with independence of mind, fairness and accountability.