Egon Zehnder recently published an interesting perspective on whether the Board Chair really matters.
Their answer, as you would expect, is yes. The more interesting argument is that the modern Chair is no longer simply a facilitator. The role is increasingly to shape debate, develop the board and create the conditions for better decisions.
Our data backs that up. It also points to something else: Chair performance appears to be unusually responsive to feedback.
Across more than 300 boards in the BoardOutlook benchmark, 89 per cent of respondents say their Chair provides effective leadership. Seventy-six per cent cite the Chair’s relationship with the CEO as a strength, 75 per cent say the Chair is well respected by the board, and 67 per cent point to their ability to invite participation from all directors.
Most boards, in other words, are not starting from a position of weak Chair leadership. The more useful question is how Chairs actually get better.
We analysed 50 boards that completed repeat BoardOutlook evaluations over multiple years.
Chair leadership improved by an average of 4.2 percentage points, more than any other area we measured. Board processes and papers improved by 3.4 points and stakeholder management by 3.1. Talent, succession and remuneration was effectively flat. Risk management barely moved.
That does not prove the evaluation caused the improvement. But it is a notable pattern.
The areas that moved fastest tended to have clearer ownership. A Chair can change how they run a meeting, how they frame an agenda, how they draw people into the discussion or how they work with the CEO.
The person getting the feedback is often the person who can act on it.
That is different from succession or risk, where improvement depends on a lot of people, systems and decisions moving together. Everyone can agree something needs to improve and still find themselves dealing with much the same issue a year later.
The strongest Chair scores in our data are relational. Chairs are generally respected, trusted and seen as having strong relationships with their CEOs. But the scores fall away when the role moves from creating a constructive environment to shaping what happens inside it.
Only 43 per cent identify comfort with disagreement as a particular Chair strength. Thirty-nine per cent cite the ability to draw out views effectively. Just 32 per cent identify synthesising debate as a strength.
A board can be respectful, collegiate and well run, and still avoid the hardest conversation. A Chair can have a strong relationship with the CEO and still allow management framing to dominate the discussion.
Trust is the foundation. It is not the outcome.
This is where the argument about the Chair as an active shaper of debate becomes more interesting. Many boards appear to have the trusted Chair. Fewer have the Chair who consistently uses that trust to surface disagreement, draw out the views that are easiest to leave unsaid and improve the quality of the discussion.
If Chair performance is responsive to feedback, this also tells boards where that feedback should go.
Not “build trust”. More specific than that. Where does debate close too early? Whose views are not being drawn out? Where is disagreement being smoothed over? Where could the Chair do more to improve the quality of the discussion?
Only 9 per cent of respondents identify having a clear plan and timeline for Chair succession as a strength. Eighteen per cent nominate it as an area for improvement. Only 14 per cent of boards strongly agree they have sufficient talent depth for smooth succession.
The picture is fairly clear.
The Chair matters. Chair performance can improve. And the areas with the most room to improve are some of the hardest parts of the role.
Boards seem to understand the importance of the Chair.
They are less consistent about giving them the feedback to get better, and about making sure the next one is ready.