During a crisis, misaligned roles and expectations can slow response time, send mixed signals to stakeholders, and strain leadership cohesion at the moment it's needed most.
|
July 18, 2025 INSIDE THIS ARTICLE, YOU'LL FIND: |
In moments of crisis, clear leadership is non-negotiable. Whether it’s a security breach, reputational scandal, natural disaster, or political unrest, organizations and businesses around the world depend on fast decisions, coordinated action, and confident messaging. But when the stakes are high and the clock is ticking, one fundamental question can emerge behind the scenes:
Who’s really in charge—the executive team or the board of directors?
At first glance, the answer might seem obvious. Executives manage operations, boards provide oversight. But in high-pressure situations where reputations, finances, and even lives may be on the line, those boundaries can blur. A board member may want to intervene. A CEO may withhold information in the name of speed. Both sides may believe they are acting in the company’s best interest—and find themselves at odds over what that looks like.
This tension doesn’t arise in every crisis. But when it does, it can deepen the damage. Misaligned roles and expectations can slow response time, send mixed signals to stakeholders, and strain leadership cohesion at the moment it's needed most.
Understanding how these roles are defined, and where they tend to overlap, can mean the difference between a decisive response and a leadership breakdown.
The C-suite—led by the CEO and supported by senior functional leaders—is the organization’s operational nerve center. During a crisis, this team becomes the command structure for immediate action.
Key responsibilities for the executive team during a crisis include:
In most scenarios, the executive team does not wait for board approval to respond. Their mandate is to lead decisively and transparently.
The board exists to represent shareholders (or stakeholders) and guide the organization’s long-term strategy. During a crisis, its role is not to run the business—but to provide oversight and ensure accountability.
Board responsibilities typically include:
Even in well-run organizations with experienced leaders and defined structures, a crisis has a way of testing boundaries—and revealing cracks. Under pressure, instincts take over. Boards want to protect the organization’s future; executives want to control the present. When those instincts collide, the results can be disruptive.
The decision to intervene should be guided by clear, pre-established thresholds. Global Guardian CEO Dale Buckner spoke to this issue and his own personal threshold during a panel on crisis oversight for board directors and executives:
“My key criteria for when the board should intervene is when reputational damage is imminent,” says Buckner. “Number two, when there is real financial risk in the short term and/or the long term. Three, when there is operational risk to the firm.”
Having this type of framework helps board members move beyond instinct and respond with consistency—especially when emotions and public scrutiny are high.
These challenges don’t happen because leaders are unqualified—they happen because roles weren’t clearly defined or stress-tested ahead of time. The most resilient organizations don’t just prepare for the crisis itself—they prepare for how leadership will function under fire.
Crises don’t just test operational readiness—they expose the health of an organization’s leadership dynamics. The following real-world example shows how even global companies can struggle with board-executive alignment when the stakes are highest.
The 2017 Equifax data breach exposed the personal information of over 140 million Americans, but the breach wasn’t just technical—it became a governance failure. Executives waited several weeks to disclose the incident publicly, and the board appeared to be caught off guard by the scope and timeline of the response.
Subsequent investigations revealed that board members lacked sufficient visibility into the company’s cybersecurity posture and incident response planning. The result was a loss of public trust, executive resignations, and long-term reputational damage.
Takeaway: A board that isn’t kept informed—or doesn’t insist on transparency around critical risks—can find itself sidelined when its oversight is needed most.
Clear leadership boundaries don’t emerge in the middle of a crisis—they’re the product of intentional planning, governance maturity, and mutual trust built over time. Organizations that respond effectively under pressure often share a common foundation: structured alignment between executive authority and board oversight.
A strong crisis response plan outlines governance protocols. This includes:
Integrating governance into crisis simulations or tabletop exercises can help surface gaps and misaligned expectations before they become liabilities. And that governance should be accessible and useful.
“Boil your 300-page [crisis response] document down to about 10 PowerPoint slides—that is the gritty governance that you should be looking for as a board member to make sure the management team is truly taking this seriously,” says Buckner.
During a crisis, ambiguity kills momentum towards action. The CEO or another clearly designated executive should be empowered to lead the response with the authority to make rapid decisions. However, that authority must be coupled with disciplined communication to the board, typically via the chairperson, lead independent director, or a crisis-specific committee.
This balance ensures that the board remains informed without becoming operationally entangled.
Not every crisis requires board-level intervention. But certain triggers— such as reputational events with material market impact, legal exposure, or public safety concerns—may cross the line from management to oversight. These thresholds should be defined in advance and revisited regularly.
Formal guidelines might include:
Inconsistent or ad hoc updates can breed frustration on both sides. Agreeing in advance on the cadence, format, and content of crisis communications can help maintain trust and minimize second-guessing during the response phase.
One best practice: daily summary updates during the acute phase of a crisis, transitioning to weekly debriefs as conditions stabilize.
Once the immediate threat passes, joint reflection becomes essential. A structured after-action review or report (AAR) involving both executives and board members helps identify:
These sessions should not be purely evaluative—they’re an opportunity to build institutional muscle memory and strengthen the board-exec relationship for the next crisis.
In a crisis, clarity is power. When executive teams and boards understand and respect their distinct responsibilities—while working in close coordination—they position their organizations to respond faster, communicate more clearly, and recover more fully.
The best time to define these roles is not in the middle of a crisis, but long before one ever occurs.
The Global Guardian team is standing by to support your duty of care and security requirements with a comprehensive suite of solutions. To learn more about our services, complete the form below or call us at + 1 (703) 566-9463.