How Effective Am I as a Board Member?

At Egon Zehnder, we often return to the story of Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton. Not because boardrooms resemble polar expeditions—though moments of isolation, uncertainty, and high consequence are not uncommon. But because Shackleton’s reputation was defined not by the journey he planned, but by the one that went wrong. When the Endurance was trapped and crushed by ice in 1915, the mission changed. Exploration gave way to survival. Every man returned home. Shackleton’s credentials earned him the command. His behavior under pressure made him enduringly relevant. Boards, in their own, quieter way, operate on the same principle. 

Most board appointments follow a familiar path. A strong résumé opens the door. Prior roles reassure. Industry experience aligns. The track record convinces. That gets a candidate shortlisted. What determines effectiveness once appointed, however, is something else entirely. How a director shows up, how they listen, whether they contribute proportionately and whether they are comfortable with tension—and disciplined in how they use it—all define whether a board member is high performing or more akin to deadweight.  

There is a line we often hear, usually delivered with a knowing smile: it is relatively easy to appoint a board director, and practically impossible to remove one. Which is precisely why boards must place as much emphasis on behavior as they do on experience. Unlike management roles, board positions allow for few repetitions. Each intervention carries weight. Each silence does too. 

Boards are, by design, composed of difference. Former CEOs sit alongside operators, investors, founders, and family representatives. Each brings a distinct worldview shaped by prior success—and prior failure. This diversity is both a board’s greatest asset and its most persistent challenge. From our work across boards globally, effectiveness has far less to do with individual brilliance than with whether the board enables that brilliance to compound. The question is not whether directors are capable, but whether the system allows them to be constructive together.  The most effective boards are not those without disagreement. They are those where disagreement is purposeful. Where debate sharpens decisions rather than delaying them. Where alignment is real, not performative.

This is why we increasingly focus on capabilities that sit beneath experience. Drawing on leadership research, we see five consistently distinguishing factors in effective directors: 

• Self-awareness: understanding one’s impact, triggers, and blind spots.
• Relational intelligence: reading the room, not just the agenda.
• Contextual intelligence: knowing what this organization needs now.
• Purpose: clarity of intent beyond reputation or role accumulation.
• Courage: the willingness to speak up, challenge assumptions, and take principled risks, especially when uncertainty or opposition arises.

In boardrooms, these qualities surface subtly. In who speaks first—and who waits. In who reframes the issue rather than answering the obvious question. In who can challenge without hardening positions. In who is willing to change their mind openly. In who demonstrates the courage to voice a minority opinion or support a difficult decision for the good of the organization. These behaviors rarely appear on a CV. Yet they are decisive in whether a board governs effectively or merely oversees. 

Much of our work on the Path to the Boardroom reflects this shift. The most effective directors are not defined solely by what they have done, but by how they have done it—and whether that “how” translates into a collective, fiduciary setting. When assessing board effectiveness, we encourage chairs and directors to ask a small number of difficult questions: 

• Is the board helping the organization see around corners or only deeper into current performance?
• Does the dynamic in the room expand the quality of thinking or narrow it?
• When individual directors intervene, does the conversation advance or simply intensify?
• Is each director meaningfully additive?

These questions are rarely comfortable. But they are also essential.

Boards do not fail for lack of intelligence. They fail for lack of behavioral discipline, candor, curiosity, and courage. Like Shackleton’s expedition, boards are tested not when conditions are favorable, but when uncertainty compresses time and options. In those moments, effectiveness is determined less by past titles and more by judgment, temperament, courage, and intent—applied in real time, under scrutiny. A résumé may secure the appointment. Behavior determines the outcome.

When thinking about your effectiveness as a director, ask yourself: Am I doing my part?