It is 11 o’clock at night and the chairman of the board receives the call everyone dreads. Major crisis, immediate response required, the CEO asks for guidance. At that moment, with incomplete information and maximum pressure, he must make a decision that will define far more than the immediate emergency: does he take direct control or empower the CEO to lead?
The instinct of many chairmen — especially where the role entails greater operational involvement — is to take the reins. After all, that is what leadership is for, isn’t it? Yet the evidence suggests that this instinct may be precisely the mistake that turns a manageable crisis into a disaster.
The trap of the hero chairman
There is a seductive narrative of the chairman who descends into the trenches, rolls up his sleeves, and personally leads the battle. In some exceptional circumstances this is necessary — particularly when the CEO is part of the problem or when his capacity is genuinely compromised. But in most cases, the chairman who assumes operational control during a crisis creates more problems than he solves.
First, because he undermines the CEO before his team at the very moment when he most needs the authority to execute. Second, because the chairman typically lacks the granular information and operational relationships that crisis management requires. And third, because by concentrating attention on the immediate, he abandons the strategic function that only the chairman can fulfill: maintaining perspective, protecting the long-term vision, and managing the expectations of the board and the shareholders.
The two extremes
We observe two opposite patterns that are equally damaging. The omnipresent chairman, common in companies where the position is held by the founder or a majority shareholder, who micromanages every decision and paralyzes the executive team. And the invisible chairman, more common when the role is held by an independent or a non-operating family member, who disappears precisely when his institutional leadership is most needed.
Recent studies warn that centralization in a crisis “concentrates power at the upper levels,” and that when it persists it “not only demotivates executives, but can endanger the checks and balances” of corporate governance. The figure of the chairman is the natural catalyst of this centralization. When fear dominates, the temptation to concentrate decisions in a single person is almost irresistible. But that concentration, although it generates the illusion of control, frequently produces worse and slower decisions, not better and faster ones.
The difficult balance
The effective chairman in a crisis operates in a different register from that of the CEO. His role is to ensure that the board functions, that information flows, that strategic decisions are not postponed indefinitely, and that there is a credible interlocutor for shareholders, regulators, and other high-level stakeholders. While the CEO manages the emergency, the chairman manages the governance of the emergency.
This does not mean absence but strategic presence. Permanent availability without constant interference. Visible support for the CEO without supplanting him. Constructive challenge without paralysis by analysis. It is a difficult balance that requires restraint of the ego and clarity about the limits of one’s own role.
P.S. The best chairman in a crisis is the one no one remembers individually, because what they remember is that the board worked.
Reference: Lavín, A., Mazza, C. and Aguilera, R. V. (2024). “El gran reto de los consejos de administración ante la crisis persistente.” Harvard Deusto Business Review.