The following is a guest post from Karen Jaw-Madson, founder of Co.-Design of Work Experience. Opinions are the author’s own.
Many executives consider board service as part of their career progression. What they don’t always realize is that it’s more than a title change, but a fundamental shift. Without that understanding, they could negatively impact their candidacy and, eventually, their effectiveness as board members.
After an entire career acquiring them, hard-earned expertise and experience move from the foreground to the background of what qualifies a board candidate. A board director no longer executes as a C-suite executive or operating partner. Board members are fiduciaries for stakeholders. They provide oversight, accountability, guidance and advice.
A different role calls for a different mindset, one that manages the appropriate boundaries. This can be an identity change for those accustomed to directly affecting results in a hands-on capacity. Those who take on more operating responsibility risk stepping on the toes of company leadership or end up being asked to take on the C-suite roles themselves.
Different relationships
Boards are not a monolith. No two are alike, even within the same industries or sectors. The people are different, and therefore the dynamics are different. The life stage of a business impacts the types and dynamics of relationships, from startups to mature companies, both public and private.
The other nuance some fail to recognize is that healthy board relations can be fostered when its members take off the “boss” and/or individualistic “competitor” hats. They must see themselves as part of an integrated unit, each contributing to the whole. To put it bluntly, the people in the boardroom don’t work for any single person there, don’t need to fight for a share of limited resources, and don’t make decisions individually but as a group.
This potential relationship pitfall may be a carryover from other C-suites, where they don’t operate as a single team, but rather as representatives of their respective functions. The opposite problem is also a risk — leaning too hard into groupthink also affects the quality of board decisions. Any board must strike the right balance.
Different leadership
These scenarios and everything in between require a certain level of leadership competency. Key capabilities such as emotional intelligence, communication, collaboration, strategic thinking, risk and governance remain critical at the board level, but they apply specifically to the role’s key responsibilities and at a higher altitude.
The how and where it’s applied transitions to the domain of the board. For example, the content of what and how a board member communicates would differ from what a C-suite executive would do because of their vantage points. To determine how one must practice leadership at the board level, revisit the role once again: What key capabilities are needed to provide oversight, accountability, guidance and advice effectively given the dynamics and relationships at play?
Answering this question might also mean that new capabilities need to be developed through board experience, especially those related to governance, strategic oversight and stakeholder engagement. The challenge is that many executives who reached the pinnacle of their careers neglect their own learning and development, to their detriment. They must make the choice and make the concerted effort to continue.
Different cultures
Beyond navigating various cultures in the global business context, executives’ ability to lead or even understand organizational culture is not as common as it is needed. This leadership gap raises another potential pitfall moving from the C-suite to the boardroom when the executive acts according to their past experiences and their behavior contradicts the board’s and/or organization’s culture.
It’s one thing to thoughtfully bring a fresh new perspective or much-needed change; it’s another to disrupt overall focus with the wrong kind of friction. Take the time to first understand the culture and dynamics at play, acknowledging that it could be completely “new to you” and therefore must be learned to have a more substantial impact.
The sooner one recognizes moving to the boardroom is a new career path rather than an extension of the previous one, the better. That includes developing the kind of board director they aspire to be and the reputation they want to build, both of which are distinct from previous roles.
Making these important shifts and avoiding pitfalls in roles, mindset, relationships, leadership and cultural context can enhance candidacy for and effectiveness as a board director. Conversely, when executives overlook these key aspects of the transition, they could limit their contribution, waste opportunities to demonstrate leadership, behave in ways that potentially create destructive conflicts and dysfunction and facilitate the wrong decisions because they don’t understand.
The ultimate failure of all comes from losing focus and not doing their job as board directors. No wonder 40% of C-suite executives surveyed believe their board is “doing a fair to poor job overall”. In today’s volatile business environment, we need more effective board directors, not fewer.
