Why do association boards struggle? There are a lot of culprits people point to: the board’s too large, or too small. Or it term-limits great volunteer leaders into oblivion, or it doesn’t have term limits. Or it’s too geographically dispersed, or not global enough. And on and on. 

Practically speaking, though, the problem is simple: Boards are made up of human beings, and human beings in a group generally want to get along—which is not the same thing as saying they want to work together to reach consensus on a problem.

As long as I’ve been writing about associations, I’ve been writing about dysfunctional boards. So the broad problem that executive coaches Irina Cozma and Elena Rodighiero outline in their Harvard Business Review piece, “Is Your Board Too Collegial?” isn’t new. But it does benefit from emphasizing the nature of group dynamics, and how they can subtly undermine what a board needs to achieve—especially when it looks like they’re all pulling together. 

“Many boards mistake collegiality for agreement rather than the respect and trust that allows for candid debate,” they write. “When that distinction gets lost, harmony takes priority, dissent gets sidelined, and accountability fades. As a result, tough conversations are avoided, critical decisions are delayed, and the discussion no longer reflects what members are willing to say outside the boardroom.” 

This is all true, and often license for people in the association world to argue for the importance of dissent in boards; I’ve done it myself. No question, dissent is a critical part of how good governance gets done—the high-level matters that boards are charged with addressing often deal with issues where people might reasonably disagree. But Cozma and Rodighiero aren’t just advocating for dissent—they’re charging boards to look for places of disequilibrium on boards, where a group of equals behaves unequally. 

For instance, they point to the problem of “unequal voice participation,” where newer board members might be afraid to pipe up about a problem because it’s “not their place” or “they’re new.” “When newer or quieter members hold back their views out of deference, the board loses valuable perspectives,” they write. “That silence shuts out voices that may have fresh insights, relevant expertise, or alternative solutions. It can create an echo chamber where only the most senior or vocal members shape the conversation.”

Something similar happens under what they call “shadow governance,” where one board member attempts to discuss and address challenges away from the open forum of the board. “Critical issues are never debated in full view, leaving the group without the benefit of diverse, transparent perspectives and creating fragmented governance,” they write.

These are structural issues, and can be addressed structurally—better onboarding for new board members, clear ethics rules about side-deals. But the problem to be fixed underneath that is the lack of an environment where every board member is treated equally and feels welcome to share their voice, dissenting or not. These are challenging times for associations, and every volunteer leader needs an opportunity to share their voice. Leaders will have to be especially mindful about places where that sense of equality is eroding.