You already know who this is on your board. You thought of them immediately.
They mean well. That part is genuinely true. They are also genuinely exhausting to govern alongside.
See if any of these feel familiar.
The board is aligned. The vote is coming. Everyone can feel it. And then this person raises their hand to reiterate the consensus.
Not because they have new information. Not because something hasn't been considered. Because they need the room to know where they stand. Again. They comment on motions that aren't controversial, ask questions that were answered in the agenda packet and mistake participation for contribution.
The meetings where this person is most active are the longest meetings. The two are not a coincidence.
This person asks a lot of questions. Some of them sound substantive. Most of them, on closer inspection, have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
The board is voting on a budget line. This person wants to discuss something that happened at a different meeting of a different organization they're involved with. The board is considering a policy. This person wants to know how it affects a situation specific to their block, their project or their other priorities.
The questions aren't about helping the board make a better decision. They're about satisfying a personal interest that has no bearing on how the board should vote. Everyone in the room knows it. Nobody says it.
This one is the hardest to address because it looks the most like good board membership from the outside.
They show up to every meeting. They follow up on everything. They circle back to items that were closed two meetings ago. They send the emails. They care deeply and they want to make sure everyone knows it.
The anxiety driving the behavior is real. So is the impact on everyone around them. A board can only absorb so much before the people who came to do the work start quietly checking out.
This one has gotten more common since virtual and hybrid meetings became normal. They're on the call. Their name is in the participant list. But somewhere between joining and the vote, they checked out.
You know who this is because when it's time to decide something, they ask a question that was answered twenty minutes ago. Or they vote and when someone asks their reasoning, it's clear they weren't following the discussion. Or they just go quiet at exactly the moment the board needs everyone present.
In person this is harder to hide. On a screen, a muted camera and a half-open laptop are all the cover you need.
The impact is real. A board member who isn't tracking the discussion can't make an informed vote. And an uninformed vote on a matter that affects real people in your community isn't a neutral act, it's a disservice, even when it's unintentional.
If this is a pattern, it's worth addressing the same way you'd address any other participation issue: directly, privately and without accusation. 'I want to make sure you're getting what you need out of these meetings. Is there anything that would help you stay engaged?' Sometimes there's a real reason. Sometimes the role isn't the right fit anymore. Either way, the conversation is worth having.
Clear meeting structure and a chair who enforces it consistently does more work here than any single conversation. Time limits. An agenda that signals how long each item should take. A chair who says 'we need to move on' and actually moves on.
These apply to everyone equally, which makes them easier to defend. Nobody can claim they're being singled out when the same standard applies to the whole room.
When the structure isn't enough, a direct private conversation usually is. Genuine curiosity works better than a correction. 'I want to make sure you feel heard. Can we talk about how to make that work better for everyone?' Most people don't know how they're coming across. That conversation, handled well, tends to land better than you'd expect.
Give it time. One conversation rarely changes behavior overnight. What you're looking for is a gradual shift towards fewer tangents, more awareness and a willingness to read the room. If that starts happening, the conversation worked.
Sometimes it doesn't work. The behavior continues. The meetings stay long. The same dynamics play out week after week.
There are formal mechanisms for addressing persistent disruptive behavior, including updated standing rules around meeting conduct, clearly defined expectations for board members and in serious cases, processes outlined in your bylaws for addressing board member conduct. None of those are easy conversations. All of them are more manageable when the expectations were written down before the situation arose.
Which is another argument for getting your standing rules in writing before you need them.
Read back through those four profiles. If one of them felt uncomfortably familiar, that's useful information.
Board service asks a lot of people who already have full lives. Caring about the work is not the problem. The problem is when how you're showing up makes it harder for the board to do its job and harder for the community to be served well. A little self-awareness in the room goes a long way. If you recognize yourself in any of this, now you know.
The Toolkit
Read about other challenging board personalities HERE.
Some links may be affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. I only share tools that I use or recommend.
Point of Order & Interruptions
Meeting Journal | Pick Your Cover
