Applying a Psychodynamic Lens to Supervisory Board Dynamics | KDVI (2025)

By Margot Schumacher and Alicia Cheak
Published in Corporate Governance Yearbook 2022/23

I. Introduction

Supervisory boards fulfil multiple roles by providing a link between the organisation and its environment, supervising management to ensure that they act in the best interests of stakeholders, and strategic decision-making. Rooted in agency theory, supervision is considered the primary internal control mechanism to counteract managerial opportunism and increase productivity and managerial efficiency¹. A high-performing board, like high-performance teams, is competent, coordinated, collaborative, and focused on a common goal. They can generate creative ideas and multiple alternatives, utilise diverse experience to solve difficult problems, and be involved and committed to the decision-making process.

Dysfunctional working relationships between executive and non-executive directors are among the greatest challenges on supervisory boards. Although skilled and competent, supervisory board members struggle to resolve conflict, build commitment, or reach closure in a timely fashion. Members often lack timely and quality information about the day-to-day operations to effectively monitor, challenge, manage and provide advice. Interpersonal relationships and politics can also hinder boardroom effectiveness. A powerful chair and/or CEO may also dominate the board and its agenda. During meetings, arguments, failure to listen to other views, the absence of feedback on individual contributions, side conversations and being locked in rituals and routine ways of behaving all work to undermine critical reflection, powerful discussions and effective decision making.

Board effectiveness can be observed and addressed in different ways. The most tangible and direct aspects are structural, such as skills and qualification, size, operations, independence and renumeration which play an important role in board selection and composition².

Board effectiveness also depends on the degree to which members can work together as strong, high-functioning work groups and engage in what Sonnenfeld calls a virtuous cycle of “respect, trust and candour”³. These group or board dynamics highlight the importance of looking at the social interactions amongst board members such as establishing group norms and values, disclosing information freely with one another, challenging one another, managing conflicts productively, engaging in critical issues and complex decision making processes and being accountable for its functioning and decision making⁴.

A third approach is to look at “under the surface” or the psychodynamics at play in board interactions. The unconscious are important feelings, thoughts and desires that remain out of awareness, and yet these desires serve as major sources of motivation and determinants of behaviour. These powerful and latent dynamics create resistances and sabotage and derail group processes. Paying attention to them means attending to the nonrational, emotional, and unconscious side of individuals, groups, and organisations. However, many organisational practitioners and consultants tend to avoid the psychological and emotional realm of organisational functioning, fearing the messy and complex processes within. The result is that many phenomena remain unexplained, unresolved, and even baffling, with individuals and teams behaving in repeatedly dysfunctional ways, against their better judgements.

In this chapter, we present a framework of useful psychodynamic concepts to help identify unconscious but potentially derailing dynamics within supervisory boards or between supervisory board members and executive board members: (1) the inner theatre, transference and values to look at unconscious drivers behind individual behaviour, (2) basic assumption groups and common defence mechanisms which interfere with group work, and (3) night visioning as a framework to detect and navigate the complexity of board dynamics. We also provide a supervisory board case to illustrate the application of the concepts and techniques presented.

II. A Psychodynamic Paradigm for Understanding Board Dynamics

The Psychodynamic Paradigm is a framework to help individual board members to reflect on their behaviour and the behaviour of others to change elements of it. Specifically, it addresses the conscious and unconscious psychological forces that determine the personality, motivation, and drivers of human action⁵. The paradigm consists of four basic premises.

• There is a rationale behind every human act, even for actions that seem irrational. This explanation is
  often inextricably interwoven with unconscious needs and desires that govern behaviour.

• We all have blind spots. People aren’t always aware of what they are doing—much less why they are doing it as a great deal of our mental life—feelings, fears, motives—lies outside of conscious awareness.

• Nothing is more central to who we are than the way we express and regulate our emotions. Emotions imbue experiences with positive and negative connotations, creating preference in the choices we make, and the way we deal with people and situations.

• We are all products of our past experiences, and those experiences, especially early developmental ones, continue to influence us throughout life.

The following is a framework which brings together several psychodynamic concepts to help Board members identify and understand the hidden dynamics of individual and collective behaviour. Being attuned to one’s inner theatre and unconscious group dynamics will help a Board identify resistances and unlock the potential for improved interpersonal relationships, communication, and teamwork.

III. The Inner Theatre of individual: Why do I do what I do?
One of the core concepts of the psychodynamic paradigm is the “inner theatre”. The interior worlds of board members are filled early experiences with key individuals, especially early caregivers, who contribute to the creation of response patterns that tend to repeat themselves in other contexts, with different people. These response patterns, or scripts, can be a source of interpersonal conflict and frustration.

Core Conflictual Relationship Themes: Identifying the source of relationship conflicts
The core conflictual relationship themes (CCRT) is a method which can help us better understand the source of certain interpersonal scripts⁸. These relationship patterns are Core, because they are rooted in deeply engrained unconscious biases at the heart of many of our relationship difficulties; Conflictual, because they are responsible for enduring conflict between what people wish for in a relationship, what they fear they will receive and what they actually receive from the other; and Thematic, due to the persistence of interpersonal conflict in current and past relationships.

The CCRT method is to make explicit these hidden dynamics by identifying several current relationship episodes characterised by conflicting emotions and thoughts, and to analyze each episode along three components: (1) W (Wish): What an individual desires for oneself in the context of a relationship with another person? (2) RO (Response of the other): What is the expected (or actual) response from that other person? And (3) RS (Response of the Self): How does the individual respond, in terms of emotions and behaviours.

An example would be: I wish to be in a relationship with board members where I feel free to speak what’s on my mind particularly when it comes to my own ideas and opinions especially about the agenda of the board and how we work together (W); but I fear that, if I do so, then others will think that I or my ideas are silly and laughable (RO), so instead of speaking up, I do not venture an opinion in or outside of board meetings, but remain silent and end up feeling extremely frustrated and self-critical (RS). A deeper analysis would explore how current communication patterns are related to patterns with early caregivers. Was it an environment where it was not encouraged to speak up or challenge authority, and if one did ask questions, would he or she be criticised, put down or made fun on? Such a pattern, while adaptive or necessary during childhood, may no longer be functional, and even limiting, in adulthood. When faced with an individual which triggers the child-parent relationship, these unconscious patterns become activated leading people to engage automatically in at times contradictory and self-defeating behaviours, causing conflict and mental pain to oneself. CCRT scripts can become psychic prisons that keep people trapped within self-sabotaging mindsets and dysfunctional ways of behaving. Attending to the CCRT of individuals allows us to better understand the motivation behind human action, identify key relationship conflicts affecting the ability to communicate and work effectively, broaden up the possibilities of thinking and reacting, and in doing so, align members of a group to more productive and mutually enhancing working relationships.

Transference: Detecting when unconscious relational scripts are activated
Transference is the displacement of patterns of feelings, thoughts and behaviour originally experienced in relation to significant figures during childhood, directed to a person in the present⁹. Though we rarely recognise it, individuals revive and transfer, during interpersonal exchanges, a vast range of psychological experiences having their source in the past. This can help explain the frustrations felt with certain individuals in certain interactions and contexts. For example, a Board member may perceive another as resembling his father, transferring his feelings for the real father to this individual and triggering an automatic range of reactions, such as avoidant behaviour or defiance, depending on the nature of the original relationship. The unconscious nature of transference makes it both elusive and potent because individuals are caught in automatic behavioural scripts without realising it.

One way to detect the presence of transference is to be aware of unusual intense positive or negative reactions towards others as well as deviation from personal or professional rules and routines. During these moments, it would be beneficial to step outside of the situation and to ask oneself “How do I feel listening to the other person/what is he/ she doing to me?” and “What do I find disturbing in this relationship?”. Exploring one’s reactions and discomfort can provide insights to the drivers of individual behaviour of a board member, and to determine if he or she is responding to the actual situation constructively or playing out a potentially unproductive or detrimental script.

Personal Valences

A final concept linked to the inner theatre is that of valency. In chemistry, the valency of an element is a measure of its combining power with other atoms when it forms chemical compounds or molecules. Some atoms can combine more easily than others. Using this as a metaphor for Board dynamics, personal valency is how an individual tends to respond or react based upon specific situations or individuals and can be used to explain what goes wrong in boards. Valences are often unconscious, and they may or may not ever be activated. They also often take us by surprise.

An individual’s valences are determined by one’s identity (who am I to be?), level of control and influence (will I be able to control and influence others?), needs and goals (will the board goals include my own needs?) and the need for acceptance and intimacy (will I be liked by the board? how close a board will we be?). These questions generate feelings (e.g., frustration; tension and anxiety) which in turn leads to coping mechanisms. Reflecting on one’s valency can help the individual better understand his or her reactions.

For example:

• In situations of uncertainty, do you withdraw, go into action mode, get lost, etc.?
• In conflict situations, do you go silent, start speaking, attack?
• What happens when you feel excluded or not appreciated or not heard?
• What happens when people praise or congratulate you?
• What happens when someone “volunteers” you? Comply? Reject?
• What happens when someone says something inaccurate or that you believe to be “wrong”?

Understanding personal trigger reactions and those of others to particular situations can give greater insight and control over the responses and behaviours within board interactions.

IV. Board Dynamics: Why does the group behave the way it does?

Group dynamics is the system of behaviours and psychological processes within boards as they act and react to changing circumstances. These dynamics are influenced by internal thoughts and feelings of each board member, expressed thoughts and feelings, nonverbal communication, and the relationship between board members. While unproductive board dynamics can be observed through visible behaviours such as presence of conflict, lack of communication and decision making, what we are interested in is the source of these behaviours, in the form of unconscious assumptions and processes that impact the effectiveness of board work.

Basic assumption groups

Wilfred Bion (1961) distinguished two constellations of group work.10 Sophisticated groups or boards are focused on the primary task, or the work the board has been put together to accomplish. The board shares information freely, seeks to solve problems and makes decisions (as opposed to avoiding them). Sophisticated boards demonstrate a high level of awareness to both individual and board processes and can bring uncomfortable or uncertain things to the table for discussion. Basic assumption groups or boards tend to be dysfunctional and regressive as their main function is to relieve anxiety in ways that are not processed or consciously considered. These boards can be further distinguished into the following behaviour patterns:

• Dependency: Reflects a reliance on a person or external source, e.g. an appeal for approval, undue attention to the chair’s cues, fear of trying new things. The board seeks a leader who will relieve them of anxiety and behave in a passive way.
• Fight-flight: In fight state, interactions are marked by hostility, aggression and often challenge. We might see attacking behaviors, push back, rebuking, resistance, self-aggrandizing, as well as “scapegoating”. In a flight state, anxiety is released through avoidance. Board members may go into denial, withdrawal or simply refuse to acknowledge “the elephant in the room”. Intellectualisation, rationalisation, and moving off the point of the discussion are often displayed behaviours.
• Pairing: To relieve anxiety through the false assumption that two people (or subgroup of the board) will sort out the problem.

In reality, boards are governed by both task and basic assumptions and switch between constellations as interactions unfold. It is the predominance of the interactions that leads to functional or dysfunctional unconscious outcomes. Recognising that a board has moved into a basic assumption, especially during stressful periods, can help members increase their awareness of regressive board dynamics at play and to implement more adaptive strategies to cope with the turbulence and complexity that impacts their ability to work effectively together.

Defence mechanisms
Inner theatres and board processes can trigger defence mechanisms within individuals and the board as a whole. Defences is a general term describing the struggle to protect against perceived threats (such as feelings of anxiety, guilt, shame) through deploying ingenious and unconscious strategies. While these defences can help boards cope and feel safe and in control; they prevent the board from fully engaging with curiosity, openness, and compassion and derail the board from its primary task, which is the main task the board was put together to accomplish.

Common defences, which takes the board’s focus away from their primary task, and which may be observed in board member behaviours include:

• Intellectualisation: reasoning about a problem to avoid uncomfortable or distressing emotions
• Denial: Refusal to acknowledge and/or accept facts
• Splitting: Seeing everything as black or white, idealisation or devaluation of self or others
• Projection: Attributing one’s feelings and thoughts to others
• Displacement: Expressing negative emotions by focusing on a less threatening target
• Acting out: Violent, aggressive, and uncontrolled acts
• Passive-aggressive: A pattern of indirect expression of hostility, including negative attitudes and passive resistance to demands

When these ways of dealing with anxieties become the dominant mode of operation, they become dysfunctional for the board as a whole. This can lead to a pattern of overt or covert conflict, lack of a real debate, not considering different points of view, lack of challenge, lack of engagement and commitment, and delaying or not making decisions.

In the next chapter, we present a case to illustrate the complexities of under the surface dynamics in Board interactions as they work together to discuss issues, problem solve and make decisions.

V. A Case Study¹¹

The Supervisory Board of CE International meets twice a year. CE (Chicken Experts) International is a company in animal feed, with a specific focus on Chicken Feed. The company was founded in 1945, right after the second World War to help support farmers overcome the devastations of the war. The company has been doing very well ever since and has expanded in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. For the next 10 years, their growth strategy is focusing on Africa, by means of green fielding and acquisitions. Africa represents a strong growth market for poultry and CE International is determined to become one of the dominant players. So far, they have mostly done business through local distributors.

The Board met to discuss a 55-million-euro Investment Proposal for Ivory Coast to build a factory for mixing chicken feed. The Board’s mandate was to take a decision on the investment due to the timing of the submission of the bid in two weeks.

CE’s headquarter is based in the Netherlands and has a two tier board, with an executive board and a supervisory board. For this case we will focus on the dynamics between 3 supervisory board members and the CEO.

Jack McRusty (President of the supervisory board) is 67 years old, Australian, and born in Queensland. McRusty grew up on a large cattle farm where his family still owns and runs the farm today. He held positions as COO and CEO of Agri firms, until 2020, when he retired. He became a Supervisory Board member in 2018 and President of the Supervisory Board in 2020. Jack knows the CEO, they collaborated together in the Food and Agriculture Organization from the United Nations. It was the CEO who introduced Jack to the headhunter in 2018, when they were looking for a new board member. Loyalty is an important value for Jack.

Karel Huismans (CEO) is 47 Years old Dutchman, who grew up on the countryside in the Netherlands, but emigrated with his parents when he was ten-year old to set up a cattle farm in Canada. He has worked with companies in the sector for 20 years before he joined CE International 7 years ago as Head of Business Development and Strategy. He became CEO in 2018. Karel is bright, quick a risk-taker, driven and very eager to make his mark. He carries his heart on his sleeve, some call him direct, others unpolished and aggressive. He wants to grow CE International with 20% and the only way is through acquisitions or green fielding. Karel makes things happen, but regularly jumps the gun. He has little patience for details and wants to make decisions quickly. He works 24/7 and recently got divorced.

Jessica Balazo (Supervisory Board member and part of the audit committee) is 48 years old Dutch/Mexican woman. Jessica comes from an expat family and travelled the world when she was growing up. She was born in Hong Kong when her father was CFO for Shell Asia. The motto that she grew up with in her family was ‘better safe, than sorry’. She went to study Finance and Accounting at Harvard. Jessica made her career at one of the big Consulting companies, where she has made it the senior partner in the global practice of Finance and Accounting. She has great advisory skills but has never had end responsibility for a business. She took a seat in the Supervisory Board 4 years ago. Jessica is pushing for professionalisation of the board, more thorough work on capital expenditure proposals and more financial information before the meeting.

Claudio Rio (Supervisory Board member, and part of the remuneration committee) is 68 years old Spanish man, born in Madrid. Claudio is the typical Spanish ‘Caballero’: he grew up in an upper-class family in Madrid, where his whole family was very active in politics. He studied medicine. He loved working with people but couldn’t stand blood and decided to study Human Resources as a second study. He made a career in pharmaceutical companies, always in HR. Claudio worked mostly in Spain and Europe and does not have a lot of experience in other regions in the world. He does have an expertise in green fielding though and has led many business opportunities from the HR side. Claudio took a seat in the Supervisory Board 3.5 years ago. He is kind, polite and emphatic. He feels strongly that people should be treated fairly and with respect. He is sensitive and can sense the atmosphere in the room quickly.

The Board Meeting

Jack opens the meeting and goes straight into the content of the most important agenda item, the investment proposal for a new factory in the Ivory Coast. Karel explains roughly what the proposal entails and stresses that it is important to take a quick decision before the competition further penetrates the market. Jack makes it immediately clear that he believes in the proposal, and that his extensive experience in the sector qualifies him to know that this is a sound proposal. He asks if the other members have something to add. Jessica starts by complaining that the audit committee was not involved enough in the prework. Furthermore, she challenges the figures and the due diligence put into the proposal. The risk analysis is too shallow and a sensitivity analysis on the assumptions is missing. Jessica feels the proposal needs more work, and she asks the rest of the board if they would agree to postpone the decision, until more information is provided. Karel gets very angry with Jessica. He does not understand how she would dare to challenge his proposal. Karel stresses that speed is to the essence of moving forward with their expansion strategy. Jessica cannot understand this, because she has never led a business. Karel tells Jessica to get off his back and cautions her to be more of a board member that stays out of the weeds. Jessica is baffled by the aggressiveness of Karel and looks to Jack for support. Jack thinks for a moment about how to respond. He expresses that he wants to focus on the content of the proposal and that he still believes a quick approval outweighs the risks. Now it is Jessica who gets angry. She blames Karel and Jack for not listening to her and not taking her input serious. Claudio feels very uncomfortable with the whole situation. He gets up to the whiteboard and makes a list of pros and cons to decide quickly in favour of the Capital Expenditure Proposal. He is trying to mediate between Jessica on one side and Karel and Jack on the other side. Jessica stresses again how she believes that the financial figures are too shallow, but she realises she is losing ground. The discussion goes back and forth, and the atmosphere is quite tense and grim. In the end Jack brings the conversation back to figures, data, and facts. He gives in on the item of the sensitivity analysis and orders Karel to have it done by the end of the week. The group cancels the dinner they planned to have together, as no one is in the mood. Quickly after the meeting they return to the hotel. They are all left with a feeling of frustration.

Claudio is the most reflective person on the board. The whole situation reminded him of his situation at home. His father died when Claudio was a teenager, and he took care of this younger siblings. His mother suffered from depressions and headaches and Claudio made sure there was no conflict and not too much noise in the house. He was always trying to be sensitive to everyone’s needs, forgetting to listen to his own. He goes back to the notes he took while preparing for the meeting. He had intended to raise concerns on ethical and sustainability issues and realised that these topics were not even discussed. He realises that his default mode is to start mediating when there is conflict and ignoring his own standpoints. Claudio’s intention is to bring his knowledge and experience more into the discussion space, leaving the conflict to the others to resolve.

Jessica went back to the hotel, wondering why she was even on the board. Maybe she should not fight so hard for her point of view. She is proud of her board position and does not want to give it up. Another strategy could be to be quieter during board meetings and to depend more on Jack and Karel to come up with the right proposals. If they are not willing to listen, why should she push back? That night, she does not sleep well. She dreamt of her older twin brothers when they were younger. The brothers were wilder, risk-taking and were as thick as thieves together. Jessica did not like it when her brothers broke the rules in the house, and she could never win an argument with them. Her parents seem not to notice the dynamics between the siblings and told Jessica she just needed not to be so sensitive. When she woke up in the middle of the night, she realised that Jack and Karel reminded her of her twin brothers always pairing up and supporting each other, leaving no room for Jessica. The similarity with the dynamics between her and her twin brothers triggered frustration and angriness. She realised that she might have been overacting in the board meeting.

Karel could not fall asleep. He was frustrated about how the meeting went and feels Jessica does not trust him in his position as CEO. Why does she always feel the need to challenge him, second guessing his numbers? Does she not see how much experience he has, and how much he has contributed to the organisation? She never gives him a compliment. Should he position the proposal next time with even more self-confidence? He feels happy Jack is on the board, what a great move to have introduced him to the headhunter.

Jack is trying to make sense of the meeting. He thought it was going to be a straightforward meeting, but instead he felt he had lost control of it. He was glad he brought it back to the content of the proposal, facts and figures and a rational conclusion. However, what did he miss? Why did Jessica get so upset and Jack also suddenly realised that he did not hear Claudio’s position during the meeting. He felt he kept his loyalty to Karel, but did it hurt his effectiveness as the chair of the supervisory board? He was wondering what he could do to make this board more pleasant, constructive, and effective.

The following table distils some of the under-the-surface dynamics in this board interaction, based on the framework proposed in section 2.

VI. Using Night Vision to Resolve Decision-Making Dilemmas

As the case illustrates, there is so much more going on under the surface in board interactions, in the inner worlds of individual members and in the intersection of these worlds. Exploring the psychodynamics of board relations creates greater awareness of conflicting motivational drivers, decision-making and interaction patterns. This awareness in turn provides insights into human motivations and board dilemmas which are often the most difficult to understand.

The Night Vision Cycle is a framework by Lehman and Van de Loo (2016) to help executives and boards decipher unconscious issues to improve collaboration and decision-making.12 It is a process to help individuals navigate through organisational reality with an attitude of wonder and curiosity, and not taking issues simply at face value. Through free association board members express and explore whatever thoughts, images or feelings come to their mind when thinking about a problem. These associations can provide the board with crucial additional categories of information to consider for sense making and decision making. When board members get a sense that they are moving off task and that their dynamics are derailing, they can stop the process, take a time out and get onto the balcony to examine and talk through what has been happening to them as a group.

The Cycle consists of the following phases:

1. Triggering, Observing & Wondering: The board begins by clarifying the problem at hand or the decision to be made and invites all present to approach the issue from different angles.

2. Creating & Entering a Reflective Space: Non-judgmental sharing of individual associations.

3. Associating: Generate associations and articulate things that come to mind when engaging with the issue or problem. These

include feelings, thoughts and fantasies which tap into a deeper level of understanding which is often outside of awareness and in turn can lead to new insights and connections.

4. Spiking: Linking associations to the issues at hand or linking unconscious and conscious elements.

5. Patterning: Looking for recurring themes and patterns in board associations.

6. Linking: Exploring additional options for intervention.

Applying night vision to the psychodynamics of group work can help boards uncover obstacles and resistances, avoid invisible traps, as well as uncover hidden treasures and opportunities and make better decisions based on input that they had not previously been able to consider. It is a willingness to explore what one is experiencing in a non-judgmental way, with a capacity to tolerate ambiguity, to appreciate what is emerging and to refrain from concluding prematurely. These are all skills which contribute to open and challenging debate, development of options, and informed decision-making.

Our case study… revisited

Here is an alternative way the meeting could have unfolded:

As soon as the conflict began to arise, Jack realized there was more going on under the surface. He called for a time-out. He asks everyone to reflect on how he or she is feeling and to share individual associations.

Karel wondered why he presented the case the way he did. Jessica explored why she became so angry and frustrated. Claudio had the chance to realise he was mediating, instead of bringing his own viewpoints. Jack also took a moment to realise he was overfocusing on the content, rationalising the issues and not giving enough attention to relationships and dynamics.

By exploring their inner theatres of each individual member (with lenses of transference, CCRT and/or valences), the board members had a chance to understand why they behaved the way they did. By realising this, they could have more conscious control over their responses and behaviour to other members of the group.

By considering group dynamic (through basic assumption groups and defence mechanisms), board members could tap into deeper levels of understanding themselves and the group and to detect when the group was on task or regressing into defensive behaviours.

Through creating a safe reflective space for mutual understanding, the board members started to share openly what they were feeling, and it created good conversations and a better understanding of themselves and one another. It created spikes, linking the unconscious to the conscious.

Karel concluded that his overconfidence triggers resistance and challenge, creating an even bigger need for recognition and support. To break the cycle Karel would try a different approach, proposing to sit with Jessica this week, to take her through the numbers, being more vulnerable, sharing his doubts, and tapping into Jessica’s knowledge. Jessica will try to control her impulses more and to get less carried away by her frustration. She happily accepts Karel’s proposal to go through the numbers together. Knowing her triggers, and to prevent herself from getting into a similar situation, she makes a commitment to get involved earlier next time and to create different ways to have impact. Claudio really liked that he was able to share the observations about the board dynamics with the team. He intends to share his observations more often and to bring his ideas to the table, and to consciously refrain himself from jumping into mediation mode. Jack understood his own defence of rationalisation and intends to become more open and sensitive to the dynamics of the group. As a chair of the supervisory board, he will explicitly create moments of reflection and explore additional options for board behaviours. The yearly self-evaluation is on the next board meeting’s agenda. Karel wants to not only focus on the structural angle (e.g., skills and qualifications) but also the social dynamics of the board. He also wants to integrate a sociodynamic lens to improve the way they communicate and solve problems as a board.

VI. Conclusions

Groups are complex systems made up of people with diverse personalities, life experiences, strengths, desires, fears, and challenges. As the case illustrates, there is often much more going on in the inner life of board members than meets the eye. Being aware of and staying with the frustrations that one feels after an unsatisfying interaction (valences), connecting these to sources of repetitive behaviours (CCRT and transference), and the impact on the group as a whole (basic assumptions behaviours and defence mechanisms) can lead to insights about the psychological forces dominating board interactions. Applying a psychodynamic lens to individual and board dynamics can give board members the space and support to surface and address these human and group dilemmas, in order to consciously manage and change them.

Overlooking the human-system dimension inhibits a deeper understanding of how to motivate and energise individuals and groups. Board effectiveness requires both addressing above and below the surface issues, and to work with the complexity of individual valences and group dynamics. We can start by asking the right questions to reveal real business challenges and issues, and then link them to deeper sources of energy and motivational forces behind human actions in supervisory boards. We can also look at the possibilities of what ifs, rather than what’s wrong: What else is possible? What are other alternatives? How could I behave differently? How can we adapt to one another as a group? This shift in orientation empowers and energises the ability of individuals and the group to transform intent into action, and action into overall effectiveness.

1 Fama & Jensen (1983). Separation of ownership and control, Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 2, pp.301–325.

2 Steger (2011) ‘Context, enactment and contribution of employee voice in the boardroom: evidence from large German companies’, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.111–134; Van Ees, Postma & Sterken (2003) ‘Board characteristics and corporate performance in the Netherlands’, Eastern Economic Journal, 29, 1, pp. 41–58.

3 Sonnenfeld (2002). What makes boards great, HBR.

4 Huse (2007). Boards, Governance and Value Creation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

5 Kets de Vries & Cheak (2014). The Psychodynamic Approach. Northouse, P.G. Leadership: Theory and Practice 7th ed., Sage

6 McDougall (1985). Theaters of the Mind, Illusion and Truth on the Psychoanalytic Stage. Free Association Books, 2nd edition.

8 Luborsky & Crits-Christoph (1989). A relationship pattern measure: the core conflictual relationship theme. Psychiatry, 52(3), pp. 250-259.

9 Luborsky & Crits-Christoph (1989).

10 Bion, Wilfred R. (1961). Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock Publications.

11 Adapted from Schumacher & Valk (2020). Board Simulation: CE International, TIAS Business School

12 Lehman & Van de Loo (2016). The value lurking in your “Leadership Unconscious”, INSEAD Knowledge.