When egos rule the boardroom: The hidden cost to governance

Nqobani Mzizi

At the heart of good governance is balance. The governance triad of board, chair and CEO alignment has already been identified as a theme critical to organisational success. This means that the boardroom must be a place of stewardship where directors collectively safeguard the organisation’s purpose, resources and long-term value.

Yet too often, it becomes an arena where egos clash, alliances form and personal ambitions overshadow fiduciary responsibilities. When this happens, governance suffers. The organisation’s energy is diverted from strategy and oversight to power struggles and personality contests.

This challenge is not new, but it is growing more pronounced in an era where boards face unprecedented scrutiny and complexity. Directors are expected to manage global risks, guide digital transformation and uphold corporate citizenship, yet the effectiveness of these responsibilities is undermined when self-interest dominates the agenda. Such dynamics in the boardroom distort priorities, weaken accountability and erode trust among stakeholders.

These clashing egos disrupt the essential balance of governance. When chairs seek to dominate rather than facilitate, when CEOs treat the board as an obstacle, and when directors jockey for personal influence, the system of checks and balances becomes a contest for control, with consequences that are severe, multifaceted and costly.

Decision-making slows as individuals chase recognition or resist compromise. Strategic opportunities are lost because consensus cannot be reached. Groupthink emerges when directors fear challenging dominant personalities, while others disengage to avoid conflict. Most damaging, the board loses legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders who expect collective wisdom but instead see dysfunction.

This dysfunction exposes organisations to tangible risks, including financial losses, reputational damage, increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legal consequences as oversight weakens and accountability fades.

Furthermore, it stands in direct opposition to established governance standards. King IV places ethical and effective leadership at its foundation, emphasising that governing bodies must act with independence of mind, fairness and accountability. The personality-driven dynamics described above are a direct violation of this principle, shifting the focus from stewardship to self-preservation.

Examples from corporate history show how ego can destabilise even powerful institutions. At Uber, founder Travis Kalanick’s domineering leadership style and inability to balance personal power with governance oversight led to a toxic culture, public scandal and eventual board intervention. At Steinhoff, governance structures failed to challenge executives whose personal authority went unchecked, culminating in South Africa’s most notorious corporatecollapse.

In the non-profit sector, the 2015 collapse of the UK charity Kids Company was partly attributed to a charismatic yet domineering leader whose vision eclipsed the necessary governance discipline of the board. These cases show that unchecked personal ambition is not only disruptive, but destructive.

The cases also reveal a clear pattern. The tangible outcomes of ego such as scandal, collapse and financial loss are always preceded by the quieter erosion of board dynamics. Trust begins to wither, directors grow reluctant to speak openly, and the board loses its ability to function as a collective brain. Recognising this decline is the first step toward cultivating a healthier and more effective alternative.

How, then, can boards cultivate ego-free governance? The answer lies in leadership, culture and structures that reinforce humility and accountability. Chairs must set the tone by fostering inclusive discussions, ensuring that no single voice dominates, and creating space for dissenting opinions.

Formal governance mechanisms, such as appointing an independent board chair or a lead director, can also help mitigate the dominance of any single personality by ensuring balanced leadership and fostering open debate. CEOs must engage the board as a source of counsel and oversight, not as a hurdle. Directors must recognise that their role isnot to win arguments, but to serve the organisation and its stakeholders.

Board evaluations and development are also key. Honest assessments of board dynamics can reveal whether personal agendas are undermining effectiveness. Training in emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, and collaborative leadership can help directors manage personal ambition in service of collective purpose. Succession planning ensures that leadership transitions do not become battles for influence, but opportunities for renewal.

Case studies of humility in leadership offer lessons. At Unilever, Paul Polman was noted forsteering the company with a purpose-driven approach that prioritised sustainability and stakeholder value. He regularly credited his team and avoided the trappings of personal glory, demonstrating that strong leadership and humility can coexist.

Similarly, Warren Buffett has long modelled simplicity and self-awareness in governance, recognising that ego is the enemy of sound judgement. Such examples show that boards and leaders can achieve enduring impact when they keep ego in check.

Stakeholders are not blind to the presence of ego in governance. Investors, employees and regulators increasingly question whether boards act as collective stewards or as theatres for self-promotion. In an environment where legitimacy is fragile, boards cannot afford the perception that directors are serving themselves rather than the organisation. Ego-driven behaviour is not only unprofessional, it is unsustainable.

Ultimately, cultivating ego-free governance is not about removing personality from the boardroom. It is about ensuring that personality does not overshadow purpose. Directors bring strengths, convictions and passions, yet these must serve the organisation’s best interests rather than their own. Stewardship requires leaders who can put the collective good above individual ambition.

Governance is not a stage for personal ambition. It is a responsibility that demands humility, courage and balance. Boards that recognise this truth protect their legitimacy and ensure that the organisations they lead are governed with wisdom, foresight, integrity and an enduring commitment to serve stakeholders with accountability and purpose.

So, boards must reflect:

• Are our discussions guided by collective wisdom, or dominated by personal ambitions?
• Do our board dynamics encourage humility, open dialogue and shared accountability?
• How are we developing chairs and directors to model selflessness and stewardship?
• What structures and evaluations are in place to identify and address ego-driven behaviour before it causes harm?

The future of governance will not be judged by the size of personalities in the boardroom, but by the calibre of decisions made in service of stakeholders. Ego may capture attention in the moment, but it rarely produces sustainable outcomes.

Humility, by contrast, fosters collaboration, sharpens judgment and strengthens legitimacy. It creates the conditions forboards to align around purpose, navigate complexity with balance and earn the confidence ofthose they serve. Ultimately, it is not the volume of voices that will define effective governance, but the integrity of choices and the values that underpin them.

* Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), Cert.Dir (IoDSA) and an Academic.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

BUSINESS REPORT