Why CEOs and Boards Cannot Be Understood in Isolation
In the previous article, I suggested that the question “Who’s the boss?” may no longer be the most useful place to begin when thinking about governance. If governance is best understood not as a hierarchy of roles, but as a system of relationships, then the effectiveness of that system depends less on formal authority and more on how those relationships function in practice. That shift, while subtle on the surface, carries significant implications.
One of the most important—and perhaps most difficult to fully accept—is this: There is no such thing as independent leadership.
The Comfort of Separation
Much of what we teach and practice in governance is built on the assumption that individuals and roles can be understood independently. We evaluate CEOs based on performance metrics, leadership style, and strategic execution. We assess boards based on composition, engagement, and adherence to fiduciary responsibilities. We diagnose problems by identifying where one party has fallen short of expectations.
Implicit in all of this is a belief that these actors—CEO and Board—operate as distinct entities whose effectiveness can be measured and improved in relative isolation. It is an appealing model. It offers clarity. It allows for accountability. It provides a framework for intervention: fix the CEO, strengthen the board, clarify the roles, and the system will improve. But in practice, things rarely unfold so neatly. A board that appears disengaged in one organization may be highly effective in another. A CEO who is perceived as overbearing in one context may be seen as decisive and strong in another. The same individuals, with the same skills and intentions, can produce very different outcomes depending on the environment in which they are operating. Effectiveness in leadership and governance is contextual.
Something else is at work.
A Different Way of Seeing
In the prior article, I introduced the concept of entanglement as a way of thinking about interdependence. In its original scientific context, entanglement describes a condition in which the properties of one element cannot be fully understood without reference to another. They are not merely interacting; they are, in a meaningful sense, co-defining.
Again, my intent is not to import physics into governance as a technical framework, but to borrow a way of seeing that more accurately reflects lived experience. Because when we examine the relationship between a CEO and a Board through this lens, a different picture begins to emerge. The CEO does not simply “lead” while the Board “oversees.” The Board does not simply “govern” while the CEO “executes.” Instead, each continuously shapes the other:
- The questions a board asks influence what a CEO pays attention to
- The information a CEO provides influences how a board understands reality
- The level of trust between them affects how candidly issues are discussed
- Past interactions shape future expectations and behaviors.
Over time, patterns form. Expectations become embedded. Responses become predictable. The relationship develops a kind of internal logic—often unspoken, but nonetheless powerful. At that point, it becomes increasingly difficult to attribute outcomes to one party or the other. They are, for all practical purposes, entangled.
From Interaction to Co-Creation
We often describe the relationship between CEO and Board as one of interaction: two parties engaging with one another, influencing outcomes through a series of exchanges. But entanglement suggests something deeper. It suggests that outcomes are not simply the result of interaction, but of co-creation.
Consider a few familiar scenarios: A CEO begins to filter information, presenting issues in a way that anticipates and avoids board resistance. Over time, the board becomes accustomed to a narrower range of perspectives, and its ability to challenge assumptions diminishes. Is the problem a lack of transparency on the part of the CEO? Or a lack of inquiry on the part of the board? The more honest answer is: both—and neither in isolation.
Or consider the reverse: A board becomes increasingly directive, inserting itself into operational matters. The CEO responds by withdrawing, becoming more cautious and less willing to take initiative. Is the issue board overreach? Or CEO passivity? Again, the pattern is co-created. In each case, the behavior of one party cannot be fully understood apart from the behavior of the other. Each response shapes the next. The system reinforces itself.
The Limits of Blame—and the Expansion of Responsibility
One of the more uncomfortable implications of this perspective is that it complicates our tendency to assign blame. In traditional governance conversations, we often look for a point of failure:
- The CEO did not lead effectively
- The board failed in its oversight
- Roles were not clearly defined or respected
There is, of course, truth in these observations. But they can also obscure a deeper reality. In an entangled system, dysfunction is rarely the product of a single failure. It emerges from patterns of relationship that develop over time—patterns in which multiple actors participate, often unintentionally.
This does not eliminate accountability. Individuals are still responsible for their choices, and leadership requires the courage to act, even in imperfect systems. But it does suggest that improving governance is not simply a matter of correcting individual behavior. It requires attention to the system of relationships within which that behavior occurs. And that, in turn, expands the scope of responsibility. A CEO cannot simply focus on “doing their job well.”
A board cannot simply ensure that it fulfills its fiduciary duties. Both must attend to how their actions—and reactions—are shaping the broader system.
Why This Matters in Practice
At first glance, this may seem like a conceptual refinement—interesting, perhaps, but not immediately practical. In my experience, the opposite is true. Many of the governance challenges organizations face are rooted not in a lack of knowledge about best practices, but in a misdiagnosis of the problem. We attempt to fix what appears to be a board issue by changing board processes, when the underlying dynamic lies in the relationship between the board and the CEO. We coach CEOs to communicate more effectively, without addressing the conditions that make candid communication difficult. We revise bylaws, clarify roles, and adopt policies—all of which have value—but leave untouched the patterns of interaction that ultimately determine how those structures are experienced.
As a result, the same issues tend to resurface, often in slightly different forms. From an entanglement perspective, this is not surprising. If the system remains unchanged, the outcomes it produces are likely to remain unchanged as well.
The Beginning of a Different Discipline
If we take seriously the idea that leadership is not independent but relational, then governance begins to look less like a set of responsibilities to be fulfilled and more like a discipline to be practiced. That discipline includes, among other things:
- Awareness of how one’s actions influence others within the system
- Curiosity about the patterns that are emerging in relationships
- Willingness to examine not only what is happening, but how it is happening
- Capacity to intervene in those patterns, not just at the level of decision, but at the level of interaction.
This is more demanding than simply adhering to defined roles. It requires a different kind of attention—one that is less focused on control and more attuned to connection. But it is also more aligned with the reality of leadership in complex organizations.
A Thought to Carry Forward
If there is a single idea I would suggest holding as we continue this exploration, it is this:
The effectiveness of leadership cannot be understood by examining leaders in isolation. It can only be understood by examining the relationships in which they are embedded.
That may seem self-evident. And yet, much of our practice continues to assume otherwise.
In the next article, I would like to build on this idea by introducing a concept that sits just beneath the surface of everything we have discussed so far, but is rarely named directly. If leadership is relational, then those relationships do not exist in a vacuum. They exist within something larger—something that shapes, contains, and gives form to them.
For lack of a better term, I will call it the governance field.
And it is there that the conversation becomes even more interesting.
