“We should discuss the matter of CEO succession at some point…” one director timidly suggests as the others gather their materials. The chairman nods vaguely. “Important topic, no doubt. We’ll schedule it soon.” Everyone knows that “soon” means “never, unless it becomes unavoidable.” It is the third time in eight months that this critical conversation has been postponed.
In another room, miles away, another board ends its meeting without having addressed the obvious decline in corporate morale and the recent departure of three key executives. “Those are operational matters,” they tell themselves. Once again, discomfort silenced what mattered.
The current reality
Boards have perfected the art of conversational avoidance. According to a Stanford University study (2023), there are topics that are systematically postponed and that eventually produce crises that were foreseeable but not prevented:
- Executive succession: 63% of boards do not have an up-to-date succession plan for their top executives, despite acknowledging its importance.
- The individual performance of directors: 71% have never had a direct conversation about the underperformance of one of their members.
- The board’s own dynamics: only 24% have formally evaluated how they function as a team.
- Conflicts over ethical values: 82% admit to having avoided discussions about complex ethical dilemmas until they became public crises.
- Challenging the core strategy: 59% acknowledge that they avoid questioning the fundamental pillars of the business even in the face of evidence of imminent disruption.
As Ram Charan noted in his book Owning Up (2022): “What boards avoid discussing ends up shaping their effectiveness more than what they do discuss.”
The consequences
- Foreseeable crises that go unprevented: problems that could have been addressed early turn into emergencies.
- Decisions by default: by avoiding explicit deliberation, the options of least resistance prevail, not the best ones.
- A culture of avoidance: the pattern of avoiding constructive confrontation becomes normalized throughout the organization.
- Lost opportunities: strategic disruptions require uncomfortable conversations that, when avoided, delay the necessary innovation.
An analysis of corporate cases by PwC (2024) found that 76% of significant reputational crises were preceded by “early signals” that were identified but not adequately discussed at board level.
The paradox
The paradox is evident: we bring together individuals of extraordinary track records precisely for their judgment, experience, and discernment, only to create an environment where they feel they cannot voice fundamental concerns for fear of causing discomfort.
As Amy Edmondson explains in her research on psychological safety: the very directors who, in their executive roles, value candor adopt in the boardroom a systematic self-censorship in the name of “collegiality.”
The dynamics that perpetuate this contradiction include the fear of appearing “negative” or “difficult,” excessive deference to seniority or authority, a preference for harmony over effectiveness, and concern about personal repercussions.
The new standard
- Normalize difficult dialogue: establish explicitly that certain topics must be uncomfortable in order to be productive.
- Structure dissent: create formal mechanisms such as a rotating devil’s advocate or dedicated sessions for emerging concerns.
- Create psychological safety: actively develop an environment where questioning is seen as an act of loyalty, not of rebellion.
- Assess conversational quality: measure not only which topics were discussed, but the level of authenticity and depth they reached.
A study by the MIT Sloan Management Review (2023) found that boards that institutionalized “crucial conversation” practices showed 38% greater effectiveness in the early identification of strategic risks.
Call to action
- Identify the conversation that everyone knows is necessary but no one wants to start.
- Create safe spaces outside the formal agenda to explore emerging concerns.
- Recognize and reward those who constructively raise difficult topics.
- Periodically assess which topics are systematically left “off the table.”
To reflect on
The best decisions rarely emerge from comfortable conversations. If your board never experiences the productive tension of constructive disagreement, it is probably sacrificing quality for comfort.