«CEO and Chairman of the Board: A Relationship on a Knife's Edge.»

The relationship between the CEO and the chair of the board of directors is one of the most critical leadership relationships within a company. Despite clearly defined roles, areas of tension regularly arise in practice between strategic oversight, operational responsibility, and mutual accountability.

People like to portray it as a partnership between equals. In reality, the relationship between the CEO and the chairman of the board is one of the most ambiguous power dynamics in the business world, and most companies pretend that this isn't the case.

The fundamental problem is structural, not personal. The president is supposed to lead, oversee, and coach the CEO, but at the same time not interfere in day-to-day operations. Nowhere is this dividing line clearer than in reality. As soon as things get tight—a quarterly target is missed, a takeover is in jeopardy, or a social media firestorm erupts—the coach becomes a co-ruler. And many former CEOs who become presidents themselves simply can’t bring themselves to do just that: let go.

Added to this is an information gap that is systematically skewed in the CEO’s favor. He controls the numbers, the customers, and the management. The president receives curated truths, packaged for eleven meetings a year. Whoever has the final say in interpreting reality holds the real power, regardless of the organizational chart.

The uncomfortable truth is also this: many board chairpersons don’t really want to be sparring partners; they want to have elected a CEO whom they can control. And many CEOs don’t want a chairperson who thinks for themselves, but one who nods along and covers for them. Both sides talk about trust but mean control.

This can be mitigated through better processes, clear organizational guidelines, honest one-on-one conversations, and a clear separation of the CEO and Chairman of the Board roles. But the underlying tension cannot be eliminated through regulation alone. When two people are held accountable for the same success, but only one has the power to remove the other, mistrust remains the rational default attitude—not the exception.

Perhaps we should stop treating friction between the CEO and the president as a leadership failure. It is the norm in a system that deliberately separates responsibility and power. The real question isn’t how to avoid conflicts, but whether we’re honest enough to address them openly instead of hiding them behind glossy reports.