BLOG Series: The Risk Sitting Around the Board Table – Part 2
The Human Side of Governance
In the first part of this series, I explored how the role of governance continues to evolve, and why increasing complexity, accountability, scrutiny, and expanding expectations may require organisations to think differently about stewardship and board effectiveness.
Yet while much of the governance conversation continues to focus on frameworks, structures, compliance obligations, and technical capability, there may be another layer of governance receiving far less attention than it deserves.
Because while governance frameworks, policies, compliance obligations, structures, and technical capability all matter, governance is still ultimately exercised through people.
And wherever people exist, patterns emerge.
Over time, every board develops a profile.
A way of operating.
A way of communicating.
A way of challenging.
A way of making decisions.
A way of responding to pressure, uncertainty, disagreement, accountability, and risk.
This is not necessarily a sign that something is wrong.
Nor is it something limited to struggling boards.
High-performing boards develop profiles.
Newly formed boards develop profiles.
Experienced boards develop profiles.
Boards navigating growth, stability, crisis, transformation, or success all develop profiles.
Because whenever people work together over time, patterns begin to emerge.
And perhaps this is where governance becomes particularly interesting.
Because technical governance issues are often not the real issue.
The deeper challenge often sits within the human dynamics surrounding governance itself — the behaviours that become reinforced, the assumptions that stop being questioned, the challenge that softens over time, and the patterns that gradually become accepted as “normal” simply because they have become familiar.
Yet normalised does not always mean healthy.
And accepted does not always mean aligned.
The Behaviours Boards Slowly Adapt Around
This is not about suggesting boards are filled with bad people.
Far from it.
Many of these dynamics emerge gradually within environments filled with intelligent, experienced, well-intentioned people who genuinely care about the organisation and want to see it succeed.
But governance is exercised through people.
And people are complex.
Boards can develop dominant personalities whose influence slowly begins outweighing stewardship. Some environments unintentionally discourage challenge because disagreement starts feeling politically difficult, emotionally exhausting, or simply not worth the tension it creates. Other boards can drift toward micromanagement, operational interference, or reactive decision-making patterns that slowly reshape the relationship between governance and leadership.
And let’s be fair.
Many experienced directors and executives will recognise these dynamics immediately because they are not uncommon within governance environments.
In fact, some might even say:
“That’s just part of board life.”
Perhaps that is part of the problem.
Because once certain behaviours become embedded into the culture of a board, organisations often begin adapting around them instead of addressing them directly.
People learn:
- what not to raise
- who not to challenge
- when to remain silent
- how to avoid friction
- or how to navigate around behaviours that have slowly become accepted over time
And that is where some of the most important governance risks can quietly emerge.
Not always through dramatic failures or obvious misconduct.
But through what slowly becomes tolerated.
What goes unchallenged.
What people adapt around instead of address.
What no longer feels safe to raise.
Or what the board has collectively become accustomed to over time.
Because adaptation can sometimes create the illusion that an issue is being managed, when in reality the board may simply be learning how to operate around an unresolved governance risk.
When Influence Starts Outweighing Stewardship
One of the reasons these governance dynamics can become so difficult to address is because they rarely begin as obvious risks.
Strong personalities, confidence, conviction, influence, ambition, and leadership presence are not inherently bad qualities.
In many cases, they are part of what helped individuals achieve success in the first place.
The issue is not the existence of ego.
The issue is what happens when ego stops serving the organisational identity and starts serving itself.
When influence begins outweighing stewardship.
When challenge becomes unsafe.
When accountability softens.
When certain behaviours become untouchable.
When agendas begin outweighing purpose.
Or when the organisational identity slowly starts orbiting personalities rather than the reason the organisation exists in the first place.
And perhaps this is where governance becomes deeply human.
Because many of these environments do not emerge through deliberate misconduct or malicious intent.
They emerge gradually through repeated behaviours, recurring tensions, unclear expectations, unspoken assumptions, and governance cultures that slowly drift over time.
Which is precisely why these conversations can feel uncomfortable for many boards.
Because once behaviours or governance dynamics become embedded into the culture of the board, addressing them can feel politically difficult, emotionally exhausting, culturally disruptive, or simply too large to tackle.
Particularly when organisations have never established:
- clear behavioural expectations
- meaningful alignment conversations
- healthy challenge environments
- or ongoing reflection around what effective stewardship actually looks like in practice
Yet avoiding these conversations does not remove the governance risk.
It often allows it to deepen quietly beneath the surface.
Governance Risks Are Not Always the Ones We Document
Governance researchers, regulators, and governance bodies have increasingly pointed toward these types of behavioural and cultural dynamics as important areas of governance consideration.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) behavioural governance research, for example, highlights the role assumptions, behavioural influences, blind spots, and decision-making dynamics can play in shaping governance outcomes in practice.
And perhaps this is where the conversation around board effectiveness needs to evolve further.
Because while organisations routinely assess strategic risk, operational risk, financial risk, compliance risk, and emerging risk, many governance risks do not emerge through what organisations fail to document.
Sometimes they emerge through what organisations fail to notice.
Or perhaps more accurately…
What they have slowly become accustomed to.
Because every board amplifies something.
Some amplify stewardship, trust, accountability, healthy challenge, strategic thinking, and alignment around purpose.
Others can unintentionally amplify fear, hesitation, politics, overreach, operational confusion, disengagement, or environments where difficult conversations slowly become harder to have.
And if governance ultimately influences culture, trust, strategy, risk appetite, leadership behaviour, and organisational direction, then perhaps understanding the governance profile sitting around the board table deserves far more ongoing attention than it currently receives.
Not simply through governance structures, compliance obligations, or skills matrices.
But through ongoing reflection around:
- alignment
- stewardship
- behaviour
- expectations
- challenge
- influence
- and the impact the board is collectively amplifying within the organisation over time
Because while we often assess board members based on what they bring to the organisation, perhaps we should spend more time understanding what they amplify within it.
The Conversation Many Boards Have Yet to Fully Explore
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges in governance today is not whether boards care.
Most do.
Nor is the challenge necessarily capability, intelligence, qualifications, or experience.
Many boards are filled with exceptionally capable people who bring valuable expertise, perspective, and commitment to the organisations they serve.
Perhaps the deeper challenge is whether boards have developed enough awareness, structure, and psychological safety to continually reflect on the governance profile they are collectively creating over time.
Not as a static assumption.
But as a living influence capable of strengthening—or weakening—the organisational identity itself.
Because if the role of governance continues to evolve, perhaps our understanding of board effectiveness needs to evolve with it.
And perhaps that evolution requires organisations to look beyond technical capability, governance structures, and compliance frameworks alone, and begin exploring the human dynamics that shape how stewardship is actually experienced throughout the organisation.
Not through fear.
Not through politics.
Not through blame.
But through greater awareness.
Greater alignment.
Greater clarity around expectations.
And a deeper understanding of what the board may collectively be amplifying within the organisation over time.
In Part 3, we’ll explore how the influence of governance extends far beyond governance itself, why what boards amplify often shapes organisational environments over time, and how organisational identity can be strengthened—or weakened—through the stewardship environments boards create.
