The Work · Board Alignment Reset
Board Alignment Reset. A 60-day reset of CEO and board trust, roles, and rhythm.
This is for you if
- CEO and board trust is fraying, even when the relationship looks supportive.
- Roles and decision rights between the board and the CEO have blurred.
- Communication is reactive, late, or routed sideways.
- A transition, campaign, or major decision is exposing misalignment.
What we do
A structured 60-day reset of CEO and board roles, decision rights, communication cadence, and governance expectations, before small confusion becomes a larger problem.
What changes
Clearer boundaries between board and CEO, fewer reopened decisions, a communication cadence both sides trust, and a board that backs the CEO with clarity, not just goodwill.
How it works
- 01
Weeks 1 to 2, diagnose: confidential interviews with the CEO, Board Chair, and key members.
- 02
Weeks 3 to 6, align: a shared map of roles, decision rights, and communication cadence.
- 03
Weeks 7 to 8, sustain: governance rhythm, written agreements, and a follow-through plan.
Who it is not for
Boards seeking to manage out a CEO, or situations that require formal governance or legal intervention.
“The CEO and Board Chair left with a clearer communication rhythm, a sharper distinction between board oversight and management authority, and shared language for handling future concerns before they became side conversations.”
Questions
- Who is involved?
- The CEO, the Board Chair, and key board members. We keep the working group small enough to be candid and senior enough to make the agreements stick.
- How is confidentiality handled?
- Interviews are confidential. What is shared individually is used to find patterns, not attributed back, and nothing is repeated outside the agreed working group.
- What is the time commitment?
- The reset runs about 60 days, centered on a focused set of interviews and working sessions rather than a standing meeting load on top of the role.
- What if part of the board will not engage?
- We start with those who will, name the gap honestly, and build agreements that hold even when participation is uneven. If the board is unwilling to engage at all, this is not the right intervention.