Reading the Road Together: How Boards and Leaders Build Trust
In my work with nonprofits, I’ve seen board–leadership partnerships that operate with remarkable ease — the board serving as the navigator who sees the wider map, and leadership as the driver who understands the road conditions in real time. When this partnership works, decisions feel aligned, communication is steady, and the organization moves forward with confidence.
I’ve also seen partnerships hit predictable bumps: mismatched expectations, different pacing, or assumptions about what the other side “should” know. These moments don’t mean the relationship is broken — only that the journey needs recalibrating. Like any shared drive, it helps to know where the potholes tend to appear and to agree on the rules of the road that keep the car moving safely.
Take a look at these four common potholes that often lead to a bumpy ride for board members and leaders:
Pothole #1: Different Views of the Road Ahead
Drivers and navigators naturally see different things — one close to the road, one scanning the horizon. When boards lean in with questions or suggestions, leadership may experience it as operational interference; when leadership pulls back for space, boards may interpret it as avoidance or lack of urgency. Without awareness of these positional differences, both sides can misread good intentions.
Board assumption: “We are offering necessary support in a difficult moment.”
Leadership assumption: “They’re stepping into areas that aren’t theirs because they don’t trust my judgment.”
Leads to: Misinterpretations that feel personal instead of structural.
Pothole #2: One Presses the Accelerator, the Other the Brake
Sometimes one partner feels urgency — a hazard ahead, a promising opportunity, or a deadline that can’t slip — while the other believes waiting is safer. And this dynamic can appear in either direction: sometimes leadership sees the need to move quickly while the board prefers caution, and other times the board pushes for action while leadership needs to slow the pace to assess operational realities.
Accelerator assumption: “We need to act now; why are we delaying?”
Brake assumption: “They’re pushing too fast without understanding the complexity or risk.”
Leads to: Frustration around pace rather than the substance of the decision, with each side convinced the other is misreading the moment.
Pothole #3: Assuming the Car Can Do More Than It Can
Boards often see leadership handling so much so smoothly that they assume limitless bandwidth and capability. Leaders, wanting to appear steady and competent, may feel pressure to know everything and say yes to everything — especially when board members, often experienced professionals, offer operational suggestions that seem simple from the outside.
Board assumption: “They’re capable — they must already know how to do this”.
Leadership assumption: “If I admit I don’t know this, it will look like I shouldn’t be driving”.
Leads to: Expanding expectations on one side and overextension (or quiet burnout) on the other.
Pothole #4: Solving Before Agreeing on the Destination
Both sides may rush toward solutions without aligning on the real problem they’re trying to solve. This is often the exact moment when well-intentioned board suggestions can feel intrusive to leadership, and leadership’s need for time or process can feel obstructive to boards.
Board assumption: “We understand the issue — let’s act.”
Leadership assumption: “We’re not even talking about the same problem.”
Leads to: Circular conversations and decisions that don’t stick.
Rules of the Road That Strengthen Board–Leadership Collaboration
These five practices create the structure, clarity, and shared understanding that keep board–leadership partnerships steady even when the road gets rough:
Rule #1: Keep All Key Conversations in One Place:
Major issues should be discussed with all the right people present — not in sidebar conversations, hallway chats, or parallel email threads. A single shared communication channel protects trust, prevents mixed messages, and ensures neither side feels surprised or undermined.
Rule #2: Align on the Problem Before Debating Solutions:
Many moments that feel like “operational overreach” or “board avoidance” are actually misalignment on the problem itself. Boards and leadership begin by naming the core issue, the desired outcome, and the shared interest driving the conversation. When the problem is clear, roles become clear — and tension drops dramatically.
Rule #3: Use “What Conditions Must Be True?” to Move Decisions Forward:
This question reduces the instinct to jump into operations or push for speed. Instead of “Why can’t you do this now?” or “Why do we need to wait?”, both sides explore the conditions required for a responsible decision — timing, risks, staffing, information, and resources.
Rule #4: Communicate Operational Capacity Honestly — and Adjust Expectations Together:
Leadership shares the true lift behind a request: workload, skills, legal or HR implications, staffing realities, and sequencing. Boards treat this information as essential expertise, not reluctance. This shifts the dynamic from “board overstepping” to “board and leadership prioritizing together.”
Rule #5: Raise Concerns Early and Assume Good Intent:
Boards surface questions before they become frustrations; leadership names risks before they become crises. Both sides communicate early, directly, and without dramatizing — assuming the other is acting in service of the mission. This prevents small misunderstandings from becoming major detours.
Final Thought
A strong board–leadership partnership isn’t one that avoids bumps in the road. It’s one that knows how to navigate them — together, with clarity, humility, and mutual respect. And at the core of that collaboration is something even more fundamental: a shared commitment to goodwill. When both sides choose to assume good intent and act with kindness, conversations stay open, challenges feel manageable, and trust deepens instead of fractures.
Drivers see the road up close.
Navigators see the horizon.
Healthy organizations honor both perspectives — and reach their destination not just because they traveled together, but because they traveled together with kindness at the center of the work.