A board is as effective as its power dynamics. Healthy dynamics at board level can be felt by both staff members and customers alike. They are reflected in the quality and type of decisions a board makes. These dynamics refer to the relationships and interactions among board members. Individuals are usually appointed to boards based on their skills, qualifications, proven track record in a particular area, and their reputation or credibility. These are measurable criteria against which candidates are formally assessed.
However, personal attributes — such as personality traits, temperament and mindset — are rarely evaluated with the same rigour, often being assessed informally through referrals. This is one of the reasons individuals are frequently headhunted on boards based on recommendations by current members. While this practice can be critiqued for perpetuating closed networks that recycle the same individuals and block new entrants, it does serve a purpose: reducing uncertainty regarding personality traits essential to healthy board dynamics.
A healthy board dynamic is influenced by several critical factors, including an individual’s mindset and attitude, the ability of members to influence one another, emotional and situational awareness, and the capacity to read and interpret colleagues’ behaviours to navigate complex discussions. It is also shaped by diversity of thought and background, communication styles, trust-building, collaboration, and, importantly, an effective company secretary who upholds order and decorum.
Collectively, these elements create the environment in which a board operates. The chairperson, as the leader of the board, carries the ultimate responsibility and authority to guide these dynamics toward shared organisational goals. The saying “you cannot have two bulls in one kraal” is particularly true in the boardroom. Multiple dominant personalities with similar temperaments can destabilise a board, leading to clashing egos that, if not managed properly, have the potential to derail governance.
Managing egos is no small task, particularly if competing interests and agendas exist. Depending on how appointments are made, some board members represent shareholder interests, others lobby for positions to advance personal objectives, and some are appointed for technical expertise or industry stature. This mix of motivations can create fertile ground for competing priorities — and, at times, ego-driven conflict.
To protect a board from the corrosive effects of ego, governance discipline must prevail.
Unlike strategic disagreements, which can be constructive, ego conflicts are often insidious. They quietly erode trust, deepen division, and undermine collective decision-making. Ultimately, they impede a board’s ability to act in the organisation’s best interest. Ego, in this context, refers to an inflated sense of self-importance that prioritises personal influence and control over fiduciary responsibility.
To protect a board from the corrosive effects of ego, governance discipline must prevail. The first step is acknowledgement — naming the dysfunction rather than allowing it to masquerade as “robust engagement”. This must be followed by an intentional collective commitment to upholding governance principles. Directors must be reminded of their shared duty to serve the organisation above all else. Where efforts to reset the culture fail, boards must have the courage to exercise governance mechanisms available to them, including, if necessary, removing a director whose conduct compromises the board’s effectiveness.
Such interventions must be timely; delays allow dysfunction to fester, weakening momentum, focus and institutional credibility. Restoring stability requires maturity, discipline and decisive action.
A recent diplomatic engagement illustrated the power of discipline under pressure. When an SA delegation led by President Cyril Ramaphosa met President Donald Trump at the Oval Office on May 21, a highly charged clash of egos appeared imminent. Yet Ramaphosa maintained a calm, measured posture. What could have escalated into reactive confrontation instead exposed the stark contrast in leadership temperament.
Prof Busani Ngcaweni likened the engagement to lobola negotiations — a moment when the groom’s delegation must remain composed, respectful and measured, no matter the theatrics displayed by the bride’s family. The goal is not to win the argument, but to secure a hand in marriage with the bride’s family. In that moment, SA demonstrated discipline and strategic restraint, signalling its intent to pursue constructive bilateral relations.
Whether in a boardroom or among heads of state, ego destabilises and discipline governs. The theatre may change, but the lessons are constant. Ego derails, discipline delivers and governance endures.
Trump’s subsequent remarks on November 7 — declaring a lack of respect for SA and his administration’s withdrawal from the upcoming G20 Summit — should be met with the same posture: clarity, composure and discipline. SA’s mandate does not shift in response. The work continues.
We are organising a wedding, with or without the hand in marriage of the US. The feast will be prepared, the tables set, and the guests will be received. If the US opts out, it should do so in peace.
• Dr Vilakazi is an academic and organisational developer whose work focuses on building ethical, human-centred systems in business and institutions.
