Change Activation
Boards, Executives, and Big Transformations: Why Alignment Matters
Jan 23, 2026
Written by Allan Maram
When organizations embark on major transformation programs—solution rollouts, digital reinventions, sustainability pivots—the pressure is immense. These initiatives test leadership, governance, and how decisions get made when stakes are high.
Two power centers dominate this space: the non-executive board (NEB) and the C-suite. On paper, their roles seem clear. The board sets the guardrails, providing oversight and direction. Executives steer the car, translating strategy into execution. Yet in practice, especially during transformation, the division of authority can blur. And when that alignment weakens, friction builds and progress stalls.
As an example, large-scale AI initiatives make this especially visible today. Boards are rightly asking questions about risk, ethics, investment, and long-term value. Executives are being pushed to move quickly, often while capabilities, data foundations, and operating models are still evolving. The tension that shows up around AI is not new — it simply exposes challenges that exist in many transformation efforts.
This article explores where that misalignment typically arises, why transformation amplifies it, and how organizations can address it before governance itself becomes a barrier to progress.
Understanding the Two Roles in Practice
The non-executive board exists to protect stakeholders, ensure effective governance, and validate strategic direction. Board members are accountable for oversight, not day-to-day management. They rely on structured reporting, escalation, and transparency from management to fulfill their role.
The C-suite, meanwhile, is the engine room of the organization. Executives are responsible for execution, culture, and operational delivery. They live with the day-to-day consequences of decisions, manage trade-offs across functions, and are accountable when things go wrong.
In theory, these roles should complement each other. In practice, transformation programs expose where that balance might be fragile. Information doesn’t always flow evenly. And informal hierarchies begin to shape outcomes behind the scenes.
Take the C-suite pecking order. Every executive team has one, whether it is acknowledged or not. Financial leaders may dominate because they control budgets and risk exposure. Technology leaders may struggle to push innovation if risk tolerance is low or investment scrutiny is high. Succession planning decisions made by the board can unintentionally tilt this balance even further, amplifying some voices while constraining others.
These dynamics matter because they directly influence resource allocation, prioritization, and the pace of decision-making. Often, this influence operates without formal recognition, making it difficult to challenge or correct when it starts to hinder transformation.
The Transparency Problem
This is where things become particularly complex.
At times, the C-suite effectively decides what the board hears, how it is framed, and when it is shared. Consider a strategic solution that runs into outages or downtime for clients, creating reputational risk. In some cases, the board remains partially or entirely unaware of the severity of the issue.
Why does this happen? Executives may filter information out of concern for scrutiny, confidence, or reputational fallout. There may also be a belief that issues can be resolved internally before escalating them upward. At the same time, messaging into the market can promise more than operations are realistically able to deliver.
The result is a cloud of uncertainty: who knows what, and when?
This can be a transformation killer. When boards lack full visibility, they cannot provide timely strategic input or use their influence to address systemic issues. And when public promises drift away from operational reality, trust erodes — internally among teams and externally with customers and stakeholders.
AI initiatives often bring this challenge to the surface. Early limitations, data issues, or failed pilots are a normal part of experimentation, but they can be difficult to communicate upward without losing nuance. When that nuance is lost, boards either overreact or remain under-informed, neither of which supports effective governance.
Implications for Transformation
Transformation programs magnify these risks because they demand speed, agility, and cross-functional collaboration. Decisions need to happen quickly. Dependencies need to be managed across functions. And leadership alignment must be sustained over time.
If informal power structures dominate decision-making, programs slow or stall. If information is selectively shared, risks surface too late to manage effectively. Conversely, when boards step into operational detail without sufficient context, executive trust erodes.
The outcome is rarely a single point of failure. More often, it shows up as fragmented initiatives, missed deadlines, and growing transformation fatigue. The strategy itself may still be sound, but execution loses momentum as alignment weakens.
So what’s the fix? It starts with clarity, transparency, and a willingness to address hidden dynamics directly rather than letting them operate unchecked.
Big Moves to Get It Right
Addressing these issues requires intention, not more bureaucracy.
Draw clear lines:
Boards oversee; executives execute. While this sounds simple, transformation makes it easy for gray zones to emerge. Formal governance charters should clearly spell out who is responsible for what, how decisions are made, and when escalation is required. Clear lines reduce second-guessing and prevent oversight from turning into operational interference.
Create joint oversight committees
Organizations should establish clear guardrails at the outset of major transformations—such as cost buffers and defined risk‑tolerance parameters—and ensure the C‑suite and senior leadership are empowered to execute within that agreed flexibility.
To reinforce alignment and shared accountability, joint oversight structures like transformation committees that include NEB members and key executives should operate from common dashboards, review priorities collectively, surface risks early, and agree on necessary course corrections. The goal is to maintain a unified understanding and coordinated momentum throughout the transformation.
Map the power dynamics:
Understand who really calls the shots in the C-suite and how that links to the board. Dig into the history of board–executive interactions and validate your findings with leadership. Identify the executive truly accountable for transformation and use these insights to build governance that supports transparency and resilience. The “discovery” will support you in future-proofing.
Bonus Moves
Mandate Crisis Escalation: When issues carry potential reputational or systemic risk, the board should be informed early, while options still exist.
Audit Market Promises: Regularly review whether what is promised publicly aligns with what is operationally possible, especially during periods of rapid change.
The Bottom Line
Transformation is about trust, clarity, and collaboration at the top of the organization.
When boards and executives work in sync, transformation accelerates and credibility is maintained. When they don’t, even the strongest strategy can stall. Transparency, alignment, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable dynamics are what turn “transformation” from a buzzword into a success story.
