©Joanne Glaudemans / Unsplash A long-standing idea about boardrooms is that they’re made up of a group of experienced directors, sitting at a table and calmly reviewing evidence, discussing strategy and making balanced decisions.
The belief is often that logic and objectivity rule, whereas emotions are firmly relegated to the background, if they even were to appear at all.
But anybody who’s spent time with boards, whether in companies, membership organisations or NGOs, fully understands that the picture is far more complicated.
Boards are human environments and directors bring their own variety of professional pride, personal reputation, lengthy careers and deeply held views about the organisation they serve. When events challenge these positions, emotion inevitably enters the debate.
And this happens far more often than governance textbooks suggest.
When the agenda turns personal
Think about the issues which boards regularly face. Performance suddenly dips, a programme attracts criticism, members begin to question strategy. The media turns its attention to a decision that seemed pretty straightforward at the time.
Situations like these are not unusual. Associations often face pressure from their membership base. They have to respond quickly when stakeholders challenge their work or impact. And corporate boards find themselves dealing with investor expectations and intense market scrutiny.
In all cases, the boardroom conversation can quickly become charged. Directors can feel frustrated, protective of their colleagues, and concerned about reputational damage, or simply anxious about what comes next.
Positive developments also bring emotion into the room. A major partnership, successful advocacy campaign, or a surge in membership growth can create a sense of immense pride. In either case emotion is rarely left at the door.
Why board service matters
Part of the explanation behind all this lies in the reason people join boards in the first place.
Certainly there are visible rewards. Being on a board bring status, influence and, in some sectors, financial reward. Being asked to join a board, particularly with a respected association or international NGO, is often seen as a mark of professional credibility.
But over time these rewards can become far more personal. Prestige, for example, gradually becomes a part of how directors view themselves. Their board role signifies experience, judgement and credibility. Naturally, they want to protect this standing.
Board service also satisfies other motivations. Directors enjoy having the opportunity to influence an organisation’s direction. They also value a chance to contribute their expertise and over time often build genuine relationships with their fellow board members.
This is especially noticeable in mission-driven organisations. Directors serving on the boards of associations or NGOs frequently care deeply about the purpose of the organisation itself. Their professional identity may be closely tied to the sector the organisation represents.
If something threatens this mission, or the organisation’s reputation, the reaction can be deeply felt.
Different directors react differently
Of course, not every board discussion becomes emotionally intense.
Routine updates, financial reports or strategic reviews are more likely to pass without drama. But certain topics can quickly change the tone of a meeting. These include leadership succession, public criticism, stakeholders disputes, or even a sudden funding challenge.
Across associations, debates about member expectations or governance reform can become particularly sensitive. In NGOs for example, criticism from donors or partners can provoke strong reactions around the table.
Despite this, directors are unlikely to respond in exactly the same way. Each individual interprets events against their own background and experience.
A director who’s served for many years may feel personally-invested in defending the organisation’s past behaviour and decisions. Someone who’s joined more recently might view the same issue with more objectivity.
How directors view their role can also shape their reaction. Some see themselves primarily as leadership advisers. Others focus strongly on their oversight responsibility for members, donors or stakeholders.
How directors view their role can also shape their reaction. Some see themselves primarily as leadership advisers. Others focus strongly on their oversight responsibility for members, donors or stakeholders. Such different perspectives influence how people respond when a difficult issue arises.
Professional expertise adds another layer. A director with significant financial experience can feel particularly under pressure when budgets are tightened. Someone else who’s responsible for governance or ethics might react strongly is questions of transparency arise.
All of this means that any two directors facing the same situation can experience it very differently.
One could feel anger, believing the issue should be addressed directly. The other may be uneasy, sensing uncertainty or a lack of control. Both reactions are human and can influence how the discussion and outcome unfolds.
Read the room
Emotions are rarely kept private in a board meeting. Anyone who’s sat through a tense discussion knows how quickly the atmosphere in a room can change. A comment, a raised eyebrow or a shift in tone can signal how people are feeling.
Over time, these signals create what might simply be called the ‘mood of the boardroom.’
Sometimes the mood is surprisingly unified. Directors will openly express frustration about a situation, but they broadly share the same concern. In those moments, the board feels surprisingly cohesive.
At other times, emotions diverge as one group of directors is protective of leadership, while another feels that change is needed. When these emotional currents collide, discussions can become increasingly political.
There’s also a third scenario, common in highly formal boards, where directors keep their emotions firmly to themselves. This tends to occur when they believe that showing emotion undermines credibility, so they keep their reactions hidden. This means that on the surface, a meeting looks calm. But underneath, people are holding onto some very different feelings.
Emotional lingering
The challenge with suppressed emotion is that it rarely disappears. When something in the boardroom triggers frustration, embarrassment or disappointment, directors often replay the moment afterwards. Conversations are revisited mentally, decisions are questioned, and relationships are quietly reassessed.
All of these experiences tend to stay with people. Emotionally intense events are far more likely to be remembered vividly. Over time, these memories can go on to shape how directors feel about their board role.
For many association and NGO boards, this matters more than you might expect. Presidents are often volunteers, balancing their governance responsibilities alongside busy professional lives. If board experiences repeatedly leave a negative emotional imprint, their enthusiasm can slowly fade.
Sometimes directors can simply disengage. In other cases, they step away from the board earlier than expected. Either way, the board suffers by losing experience and continuity.
The quiet work of the board chair
Emotions can also influence how decisions are made. Strong feelings help boards focus on urgent problems, but they can also cloud judgement. Directors might become defensive and dismiss uncomfortable information, or react too quickly.
This is where the role of the board chair is particularly important. An effective chair doesn’t try to eliminate emotion from the room. This is unrealistic. Instead, they recognise it, and help the board deal with it constructively.
Some chairs create space for reflection following difficult discussions. Others encourage directors to step back and consider how the conversation unfolded, not just the final decision.
These moments of reflection are especially helpful in situations where boards often include individuals from very different professional backgrounds.
Taking time to talk through tensions helps prevent them from quietly accumulating. Most importantly, it helps boards maintain trust.
An honest view of board life
For years, governance thinking has suggested that the best boards operate at their best with cool detachment.
But the reality of boardroom life tells a very different story. Directors care about the organisations they serve, their colleagues, reputations and the missions they support. It would be surprising if emotions did not appear from time to time.
The real question is whether boards recognise emotions in the boardroom and handle them well?
Andrew Kakabadse (1948-2025) was professor of governance and leadership at Henley Business School and a leading figure in UK and global corporate governance. Nada Kakabadse is professor of policy, governance and ethics at Henley Business School.