How CEO’s Can Build a Better Relationship with the Board
Few professional relationships are more influential — or more fraught — than that between a CEO and their board of directors. The stakes are enormous: a supportive, aligned board can be a CEO’s greatest strategic ally. But a strained or mistrustful board can just as easily become a drag on performance, vision, and morale.
Despite its critical importance, the CEO-board relationship remains misunderstood. Many CEOs, especially first-timers, view the board primarily as a compliance function — a group of powerful overseers to whom they must justify every decision. But this outdated paradigm is no longer fit for purpose. “Founders and CEOs who don’t bring the same level of intentionality to how they manage their board as they do with their leadership team are making a great mistake,” warns Michael Seckler, CEO of Justworks [1].
Recent research underscores this point. A study by Christopher Bingham and Sam Garg, based on over 90 interviews with first-time CEOs and their board members, reveals that dysfunction typically arises not from insufficient communication, but from poor timing, ill-defined boundaries, and a reactive approach to governance. “It’s not how much, but when and how a CEO interacts with the board that determines the success of the relationship,” they conclude [2].
In short, good CEOs manage their boards. Great CEOs leverage them. The transition from tension to trust begins not with transparency alone, but with strategic choreography of communication, culture, and collaboration.
Before the meeting
One of the most common missteps occurs before the boardroom doors even open. In an effort to be transparent and avoid surprises, many CEOs schedule individual, live previews with board members ahead of formal meetings. But this well-meaning habit can backfire.
Emma, a fintech CEO interviewed by Bingham and Garg, offered detailed one-on-one walkthroughs to her directors before each meeting. The gesture, though appreciated, created chaos. Directors made last-minute demands that her team couldn’t fulfil on short notice, and her effort to maintain control ended up breeding suspicion. Some directors felt other members had been given preferential access to decision-making, while others demanded similar treatment. The result was a fraying of trust and erosion of Emma’s authority [3].
Contrast that with Mark, a software CEO who sends a succinct one-page briefing to his board ahead of meetings. The document outlines key issues and strategic trade-offs but reserves detailed discussion for the boardroom itself. The clarity and discipline of this approach ensures board alignment without overexposure. As Bingham and Garg observe, “Light previews, inclusive meetings, and direct debriefs” create a virtuous cycle of trust and autonomy [4].
In the Room
The boardroom is often seen as the CEO’s proving ground — an arena to showcase leadership and strategic acumen. But overperformance in this space can be just as damaging as underperformance.
Take David, CEO of a logistics firm, who insisted on presenting every board slide himself and excluding his executive team from meaningful participation. His intent was to project control and competence, but the result was the opposite: directors perceived him as defensive and insecure. By monopolising the spotlight, David inadvertently diminished both trust and transparency [5].
Successful CEOs understand that board meetings are not solo performances. Rachel, who leads a consumer goods company, took a different approach. She coached her top team in advance and allowed them to lead discussions relevant to their functions. This not only showcased the strength of her leadership bench but allowed directors to engage with the people closest to the operations. Her strategic move to “curate the right voices” built confidence in the team and, crucially, earned her more autonomy as CEO [6].
“Control isn’t about talking the most,” note Bingham and Garg. “It’s about creating space for productive engagement” [7].
After the Meeting
The real power move, however, comes after the boardroom lights dim. Many CEOs underestimate the importance of post-meeting follow-ups. Some delegate the task entirely — an error that can weaken their credibility.
James, a renewable energy CEO, learned this the hard way. He allowed his staff to handle board follow-ups, which blurred lines of authority and gave directors an unfiltered view into company operations. Before long, they bypassed him altogether, undermining his leadership and compromising strategic clarity [8].
Others fall into the opposite trap. Noah, for instance, relied on his lead director to manage feedback loops with board members. This created a bottleneck of concerns and diminished trust, fuelling a cycle of defensiveness and detachment [9].
Then there’s Sarah. After each board meeting, she initiated short, direct follow-ups with individual directors. In private, she clarified decisions, uncovered hidden support, and addressed concerns before they could fester. “Board members were more supportive in private than in the group setting,” Sarah discovered — a finding that helped her reassert her narrative and deepen trust over time [10].
Shaping the Board
Beyond structured interactions, the most effective CEOs see the board not as a check, but as a partner. According to Alexander Puutio, a columnist for Forbes, “Although technically correct, the view that a board exists solely to oversee the CEO is limiting, if not outright misleading” [11].
Art Zeile, CEO of Dice, puts it bluntly: “The board serves the company and the CEO much more than the other way around” [12]. For Zeile and others, the board is not a static body to be appeased, but a dynamic group that the CEO can — and should — shape.
This requires courage. Hitesh Sheth, CEO of Vectra AI, believes CEOs must make “smart choices” about board composition early in their tenure, even if it means forgoing higher valuations. “Alignment between the board and the CEO is absolutely critical,” he insists. “It trumps just making choices based on valuation metrics” [13].
Smart CEOs, then, choose board members for their utility, not their pedigree. They seek individuals who complement the company’s strategic trajectory, fill gaps in executive knowledge, and share long-term vision over short-term performance.
Culture First
Of course, no board can function well if it’s misaligned with the company’s values or culture. That’s why Matt Kunkel, CEO of LogicGate, argues that the tone must be set from the top. “It’s a cultural thing,” he says. “The board should support and guide the CEO in assessing risks as the company scales. If they’re only about compliance, something’s gone wrong” [14].
This sentiment is echoed by Jonah Midanik, COO of Forum Ventures. He encourages CEOs to engage the board early, before strategy hardens into decisions. “CEOs who treat their board like a sounding board, not a report card, get much more value from those interactions,” Midanik notes [15].
Transparency is key, but it must be accompanied by consistency and courage. “A CEO who feels they need to be afraid of their board’s decisions is missing the point,” says Rocky Cole, COO of iVerify. “The board isn’t there to run the company on the CEO’s behalf” [16].
Strategic Trust
The prize for CEOs who get this right isn’t just harmony, it’s strategic leverage. McKinsey research shows that excellent CEOs devote particular attention to board engagement, treating directors as collaborators in vision-setting, capital allocation, and long-term planning. “Excellent CEOs help directors help the business,” the report concludes [17].
That means shaping forward-looking board agendas, maintaining close relationships with individual directors, and ensuring board capabilities match business needs. As the McKinsey authors note, the best CEOs don’t see board input as interference. They treat it as a resource to be cultivated — early, often, and with precision [18].
Ultimately, the most successful CEOs understand what many overlook: the boardroom isn’t a battleground or a theatre, it’s a crucible. Trust, once forged, creates the conditions for risk-taking, resilience, and reinvention.
Or, as Michael Seckler puts it, “Getting things right at the board level isn’t rocket science. But it is strategy” [19].