EFFECTIVE corporate governance does not thrive on comfort or consensus alone.
It relies on constructive tension — the disciplined exchange of differing views, informed challenge and rigorous debate in pursuit of better decisions.
When this tension disappears, governance does not simply soften; it weakens fundamentally.
Boards that lose constructive tension may appear harmonious, efficient and well-aligned.
In reality, they are often drifting towards irrelevance.
Why constructive tension matters
Constructive tension is not conflict for its own sake. It is the deliberate testing of assumptions, the willingness to challenge prevailing narratives and the courage to surface uncomfortable truths before they become institutional risks.
At its best, it strengthens decision-making, improves strategic clarity and protects long-term value.
Boards exist precisely because management operates under incentives, pressures and perspectives that require independent oversight. Without tension between governance and management, oversight collapses into endorsement.
The disappearance of constructive tension rarely happens overnight.
It unfolds gradually and almost imperceptibly.
Directors begin to ask fewer probing questions. Discussions become shorter. Management presentations are accepted largely at face value. Risk and audit reports are “noted” rather than examined.
Over time, questioning feels unnecessary, or worse, unwelcome.
Directors may begin to self-censor, choosing not to challenge issues that appear sensitive, complex or disruptive.
What was once a culture of inquiry becoming a culture of accommodation.
The warning signs boards miss
The early warning signs are subtle but consistent. Assumptions are no longer tested. Strategic options are presented as faits accomplis rather than choices.
Risk indicators are reported without context or consequence. Audit findings are acknowledged, but escalation is rare and follow-up weak.
As this pattern settles, the board slowly transforms from a forum for judgment into an echo chamber.
Agreement becomes routine, not because risks are absent, but because dissent has quietly exited the room.
One of the most damaging shifts occurs when dissent is redefined as disruption.
Directors who raise concerns are labelled “difficult” or “negative”.
Questions are interpreted as mistrust rather than stewardship.
In response, politeness replaces duty.
This culture of polite agreement may feel collegial, but it is deeply corrosive. It signals that harmony is being prioritised over accountability, and that governance has been subordinated to comfort.
The loss of constructive tension is often reinforced by power dynamics and familiarity.
Long-serving boards, dominant executives or highly cohesive leadership teams can unintentionally suppress challenge.
Familiarity breeds trust, but unchecked, it also breeds complacency.
As relationships deepen, directors may become reluctant to disrupt established dynamics.
The board’s independence remains intact on paper, but its influence erodes in practice.
Consequences that emerge too late
When constructive tension disappears, institutions become vulnerable.
Strategic blind spots persist. Emerging risks go unaddressed. Ethical drift goes unnoticed. By the time consequences surface — through performance decline, regulatory scrutiny or reputational damage — the opportunity for early intervention has often passed.
Post-failure reviews frequently highlight missed warning signs that were present but unchallenged. The issue is rarely a lack of information, but a lack of questioning.
Reintroducing constructive tension requires intentional effort.
Boards must actively signal that challenge is expected, welcomed and valued.
Chairs play a critical role in creating space for dissent, ensuring that difficult questions are explored rather than deflected.
Strong boards normalise disagreement without personalising it.
They distinguish between robust debate and dysfunction.
Most importantly, they recognise that discomfort is often the price of effective oversight.
Final reflection
Constructive tension is not a governance weakness — it is a governance strength.
Boards that avoid it may enjoy smooth meetings, but they do so at the expense of effectiveness.
When dissent disappears, governance becomes performative.
When questioning stops, oversight fails.
The healthiest boards are not the quietest ones but the ones willing to challenge themselves before the organisation is forced to learn the hard way.
Newton Demba is a corporate governance and management consultant, non-executive director and adjunct lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe in the Faculty of Business Management Sciences and Economics. He writes in his personal capacity. For feedback, please contact: newton.demba@lrtin.com or +263784166296.-herald
