A growing call for accountability in the boardroom

Board oversight is meant to be a critical resource in helping CEOs navigate challenges, but many boards may have room for improvement. In PwC’s 2025 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, 55% say that at least one fellow board member should be replaced. That’s a six-point jump from last year, and it’s the first time a majority has said a director should go. In the survey, which drew responses from more than 600 US public company directors, board members point to a litany of issues:

• 41% say a colleague doesn’t contribute meaningfully to discussions.
• 34% say a director’s long tenure has led to diminished performance.
• 21% say a colleague lacks relevant expertise for the role.
• 20% cite an interaction style that hurts board dynamics.

Whether this reflects growing candor or mounting dissatisfaction, the result is the same: more directors recognize when peers are underperforming. But that recognition rarely leads to change.

Indeed, the main reason underperforming board members remain in place appears to be a pervasive culture of collegiality. A culture of respect and civility is of course beneficial to effective governance, but it shouldn’t prevent a board from bringing in new perspectives, challenging assumptions, and evolving its mix of skills to complement changing corporate strategy.

Improving board performance calls for concerted action among all stakeholders. Here’s what each group can do:

Individual directors can improve their own performance.
In the survey, 88% of directors say they can take at least one action to improve their board’s effectiveness, such as being more willing to speak up during discussions. Directors can also seek additional education or training on key topics. Rather than waiting for formal training programs, they can proactively seek out knowledge and direct, hands-on experience.

Board leaders should be willing to have tough conversations.
Board and committee chairs—including lead independent directors in cases where the CEO also holds the chair role—must set the standard for performance. This means setting clear expectations; offering timely and constructive feedback; and normalizing candid, respectful dialogue when a director is not meeting expectations. These conversations are far more effective when built on strong interpersonal relationships, where people can air disagreements and have healthy, honest conversations when it matters most.

Full boards should redouble their efforts on assessment processes.
Board assessments are often treated as check-the-box exercises, rather than genuine drivers of change. Among respondents, 78% don’t believe their board’s assessment process provides a complete picture of overall board performance. To improve, boards should treat assessments as an opportunity to enhance effectiveness. One clear step is periodically engaging an independent, experienced facilitator to bring an impartial perspective, enable more robust feedback, minimize internal biases, and translate insights into concrete improvements.